I have been told that either the hard limit is only implemented in the client, or that a specific version of the client is required to enforce the hard limit.
81 karma · joined December 25, 2014
http://www.crushpaper.com/
In this case tinder is not charging unnattractive people more. Tinder has an algorithm that shows (mostly) only attractive people to other attractive people. That part is free!
The rating algorithm is probably a lot like pagerank. Ratings by users that are rated highly matter more.
The potential signals are:
* swipes yes or no
* messages received
* length of conversations
* number of unmatches/blocks received
http://www.reddit.com/r/OkCupid/comments/1nkdfx/
http://www.reddit.com/r/OkCupid/comments/28oeo6/
Some states in the the US also ban price discriminating based on sex or gender. For example, California, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Nevada, Wisconsin. Does anybody know if OK Cupid price discriminates in the UK?
* Perhaps men could be charged more than women - it's sexist and a double standard but in many parts of the world men are expected to pay for dates anyway.
* Perhaps users need to say if they are looking for a short term relationship versus a long term relationship and are charged more (or less) to match with others who are looking for a long term relationship.
* Perhaps users are only charged if they match with more than X people per month.
I'm curious - how did you test it for compatibility with the main K implementation?
I found a quote on this: American police need probable cause to make an arrest, but in the United Kingdom, officers can arrest on suspicion. Probable cause is defined as the belief that a crime was probably committed, and that the suspect was probably responsible. Reasonable suspicion means that a right-minded individual would have grounds to suspect that a crime had been committed and that the suspect might be responsible. To have probable cause, greater evidence is required.
Being arrested on suspicion in the U.K. isn’t so unpleasant as being arrested in the U.S. In fact, you’re likely to be released within hours without paying any bail.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/20...
Banks compete in 2 main areas: interest rates and services. TD Bank has a far better service offering than Citibank, Chase, etc. TD Bank offers ATM fee reimbursement anywhere in the world, much longer branch hours, free coin counting, nicer employees, etc. And yet TD Bank is not crushing the competition. TD Bank's better service offering is not enough of a competitive advantage to offset the stickiness of commercial banking.
A person's main checking account is a pain to transfer for most people. To change your checking account you need to: 1) Wait days for the new account to be approved and initial transfer to clear 2) Wait to receive new checks 3) Reset up your recurring bill payments
The reason that most banks don't innovate is that customers move to better banks very slowly.
There is also the common problem where candidates google for answers or at least seem to google for answers during phone screens.
The problem with asking truly challenging coding questions during an interview is that they are often too challenging to finish in the time allotted. Frequently challenging coding questions require an ahah moment or domain knowledge. For example if an interviewer asks a candidate to invent an advanced algorithm on the spot what is being measured? If the candidate gets the answer right they might be really smart, they more likely have been previously exposed to the idea, or they got lucky. If they got the answer wrong the interviewer must judge them on their ability to communicate their thought process during their attempt - but from that the interviewer didn't learn if they can code.
You shouldn't be disappointed that interviewers don't know straight away that you aren't a charlatan. You should instead be disappointed by the fact that there is such a high number of successful charlatans in our industry.
Yes, people do crazy thing with accounts, and in many parts of the world there are good reasons to have multiple SIMs. People will have 1 IG for sexy photos and another for their family, etc. But there is far less motivation to do that with whatsapp, line, viber, kik, etc. The reason for the difference in motivation is that your whatsapp messages are explicitly shared with individuals rather than with groups so there is no need to partition messages by accounts. The main reason for have two whatsapp accounts is the old joke about having two SIM cards: "one for your wife, and one for your girlfriend".
It is easy for us to say that a growth of whatsapp spam is inevitable but I would bet a key part of whatsapp strategy is to take that down to as close to nothing as possible. In comparison on fb and instagram spam is embraced. I think that is part of the reason why we see whatsapp taking a different direction than other seemingly similar social networking companies.
That is not a mistake. It is a direct result of the fundamental insight that enabled whatsapp to become what is is - being stateless. Your first two complaints are technical, but the third is a business decision that optimizes their product to fit the needs of the market.
This is a by the by, but surveillence in the context of business requirements means something different. For example, financial companies need to surveil their employee's messages for illegal activity.
I am not going to comment on the chrome only and non standard API complaints.
The key insight behind modern mobile messaging that allows them to scale cheaply is that for most consumers the phone is persistent enough that the server does not need to store messages. Ask a 19 year old if they need their old whatsapp messages. Most will say no. In fact, many proactively delete them. Turning a mobile messaging into a CPU and bandwidth only problem is a clever hack instead of it also being a disk and indexing problem.
This is hard thing for a lot of us to understand because we come from a world where our business has message retention and surveillance requirements. We want to run quantized self and sentiment analysis reports for the last 10 years. But most people either don't know that might even want that.
The other key insight is that knowing the user's identity can be more important than the user themselves.
The single device strategy is to keep the whatsapp network a network of people - no bots and no spam.
They are still trying to destroy Kik, Line and Viber. The war is not over (http://expandedramblings.com/index.php/how-many-people-use-c...) Bots and spam would be just the reason for people to switch. As it is, spam might be the only thing that can kills Tinder - and people are watching that.
Line and Viber are more fun and more full featured than whatsapp. The only thing keeping people on whatsapp is that people are annoyed by having too many messaging apps on their phone. If people get sick of whatsapp they will nag their friends to install Line. Once those friends are nagged a few times they will install it. How about when they hear that the voice calls higher quality (subjective of course)?
People think the value of Whatsapp is that it is so pervasive. That's a big part of the value, but so much of the value is that whatsapp knows who you really are. You might have a few twitter accounts, a couple of facebook accounts. But you have only _one_ whatsapp account.
For example he could touched on the O-1 visa for "Aliens of extraordinary ability".
Instead the conversation has devolved into the costs and benefits of H-1B visa.
PGs goal is to bring more great programmers to the US, however the H-1B visa is specifically targeted to good programmers, not great programmers.
From wikipedia: > The law requires H-1B workers to be paid the higher of the prevailing wage for the same occupation and geographic location, or the same as the employer pays to similarly situated employees. Other factors, such as age and skill were not permitted to be taken into account for the prevailing wage.
Here are some other points of confusion:
1) Some people are hung on the term "programmer", I think what is meant by this term is someone who is A) deeply technical, B) codes, C) contributes to product fit, and D) contributes project planning.
2) Some people are hung up on the term "great" programmer". Good programmers get their work done on time and with high quality. Great programmers contribute key insights that transform the product or team in ways that that directly lead to accomplishing the team's goals. Personally I've found that it is often possible to distinguish between good and bad programmers. It has been much harder to distinguish between good and great programmers.
3) Some people are hung up on the fact that great programmers are frequently not paid 10 or 100 or 1000 times what good programmers are paid. There are three very good reasons for this. A) A great programmer has to be in the right position to be commensurately rewarded. (The world's greatest fly fisherman will receive a normal wage on a commercial fishing boat.) B) A great programmer is making decisions and taking actions that will result in raised profits. They don't get paid up front because the money isn't there yet. C) Many people have never worked with a great programmer. The programmers that they think are great are only 1.5X or 2X or 3X. That isn't.
4) Some people are hung up on the fact that PG seems to make either A) the assumption that H-1B recipients are great programmers, or B) the assumption that if the US grants more H-1Bs annually that there all the additional recipients will be great programmers. I don't think he's making either of those assumptions. There is a curve of capability and potential for H-1B recipients just like every other population. PG is saying that any increase in the number of great programmers in the US is good for the US.
5) The final question is what does it mean for something to be good for the US? A) If an H-1B recipient starts the next facebook is it good for the US? It will be great for angels, VCs and institutional investors. It will be good for the US because the US will tax everyone's personal compensation (although any eventually corporate profits will likely be tax sheltered). It will be good for the US because jobs will be created (although there might be fewer jobs at the companies being disrupted. B) If the H-1B recipient only winds up doing good job at a corporation then the corporation did not need offer a more attractive salary to a US citizen or train a US citizen to do the job. This is good for the corporation because their costs are lower (assuming the cost of the H-1B application process is lower than the cost of offering a more attractive salary or training an individual with potential). This is bad for the individual who might otherwise have been trained or received increased compensation. However if the role is truly a role that would not otherwise have been filled then there is no individual who is negatively impacted by hiring an H-1B applicant.
Here is something to think about: 1) The company is willing to compensate a programmer $COST for a role. 2) The company expects an increase in revenue of $REVENUE as result of the additional headcount. 3) The company has a return on investment goal of ROI for the year. It might be an internal figure or something promised to its investors. 4) The company can only hire a candidate if (REVENUE-COST)/COST > ROI 5) There are two reasons for hiring H-1Bs A) because the company can not find anyone else who will accept a compensation that makes the equation work or B) because the company can not hire anyone for the role (perhaps they or their industry has a negative reputation or no reputation).
There are certainly things that complicate this equations: 1) Perhaps the company is forward looking enough to hire in advance of expected attrition. 2) Perhaps the individual is in a role that supports revenue creation by another individual. 3) Perhaps the company has an "up or out" approach and they are hungry to find stars. 4) Perhaps the revenue that the new hire would bring in is very hard to predict. In this case the up front compensation would be reduced to account for the risk. Typically the role would come with the potential for increase compensation in the form of a bonus, stock options or commission.
It is a gut wrenching feeling when code crashes in production and it is my compiler to blame. It seems so much more shameful to me then if a library or service of mine crashed, not that that isn't shameful as well.
Do I need to loosen up?
Hi, I'm curious what your thinking is? Is it because global variables make testing hard? Is it because global variables are can not be optimized well? Is it because of bugs in julia related to global variables?
I would like to use a language that doesn't have static variables, global variables, or static functions to make writing tests easier, but that makes it really hard to interface with C and the JVM. I often need functions like write() and System.out.print.