bobdole12345

The only reason Google can be Google is economy of scale. No matter how friendly you make the marketplace for proto-Google hopefuls, they an never even approach the infrastructure capable of making the same product.

Telecom and the like are the same, competition leads to fragmentation and destruction of opportunity. Monopolies lead to bad platforms, but platforms that hit the scale divided and broken half solutions never will.

This isn't Nam Smokey! There are rules!

I think if the president of the US is unable to operate within the terms of service, he shouldn't get a platform.

Why is that something you're going to argue against?

Am I the only one who gives a fuck about the rules around here?

Who cares?

Youtube deletes lots of comments that are vulgar or tasteless or obvious coordinated uselessness before anyone sees them.

Just because this one is an insult to China's ruling party doesn't make it more meaningful.

Uh, did you forget Darth Cheney?

You don't blame the kid who picked up the hammer for the destruction caused by the first kid who forged the hammer in Mount Doom, painstakingly carried it into the china store from Mordor, and waited for an excuse to start smashing china.

But yeah, that hammer is totally on Obama.

No, more like the laser pointer dot can move faster than any cat could catch.

That doesn't mean the laser pointer wielder is moving that fast.

Well, other than the unbroken history of AMD managing to fail when ahead.

Intel is a juggernaut because even if it's not shipping the best, it's always shipping something on time, every time.

Medicine changes on the scale of multi-year adjustments.

What exactly do you think is going to change in the market?

Education. The world is radically more educated than in the past.

That's not a product of free speech, it's a product of teaching people how to evaluate thoughts they come across in the wild.

Sorry, I stopped considering your argument when you claimed the HHVM wasn't anything other than a crime against humanity.

PHP could have died, but no, it got a new lease on life.

Hive is a bad copy of a google tech. Buck is a bad copy of a google tech. Hbase is a bad copy of a google tech. Rocks is cute, but it's a bit sad that it's at the center of literally everything in the company.

Phabricator isn't bad, but it's a pretty close copy to things at google.

And I think Google only joined the open compute initiative to try and talk facebook out of it's weird ideas.

FAIR is just an advanced PUBLIC AI research lab.

Just because they're the best ones talking about what they're doing, doesn't mean they're anywhere near the best.

Smartest people? Their tech stack is a dated cargo-culting of Google, hell, their newest thing is just using kubernetes with a thin wrapper.

Their AI platform is a also ran in pretty much every aspect.

Where exactly are the smart people?

The window of allowable discourse in the US doesn't reach as far left as the center of Canada.

Most Canadians steadfastly believe in health care for all, and they'll defend that. They might quibble a tiny bit about the edge like "Should there be any private health care at all?".

In Europe, in many cases, the farthest right parties aren't even as far right as the Democrats in the US. Standard government policies are complete heresy to discourse in the US.

Try talking about Unions in the US. Even in California, that bastion of the Left on the Leftest of coasts. At which point, you're likely going "Yeah, but who worries about Unions in this day and age?", which is exactly what I mean. The rest of the developed world does. A lot.

It's not a generalization, the window of allowable discourse does not encompass much of the spectrum in the US.

You can disable FBs access to location services.

And photos.

And contacts.

It was offered as a choice, because when you install the app, it asks for permissions to access those things.

Is it a data breach if they know that nobody used it?

Man you can really miss a point there.

Look at the people saying "All lives matter", then look at the people saying "Black lives matter".

Lo, and you are enlightened my child.

Let me explain something you seem to be missing: subtext.

Subtext is what is being said without being said. So, when I say, "break a leg" to an actor most people pick up on the subtext, and realize I'm not wishing the actor actually break their leg.

When someone responds to "Black lives matter" with "All lives matter", most people get the subtext is that assuredly racist. I know that might seem confusing, because they're saying one thing, while meaning something very different.

Here's why those are different: One is an abstract affect on your paycheck that may, or may not be real.

And the other is a definitive slight against my worth and my legitimacy as their co-worker.

Usually, it's a conservative saying in front of his group of foreign co-workers "I think it's great that Trump is cracking down on all these foreign workers stealing our jobs".

Then they wonder why nobody wants to get lunch with them.

It doesn't tho.

If my co-worker is donating to Trump, and talking about kicking foreign workers out of America, they're literally talking about kicking ME out of the country. They're donating money to a politician who wants to make my life harder, and make my visa process less pleasant.

I can tolerate my co-worker all day, but if they're working to make my life less pleasant and workable, they're going to feel some chill.

Sorry you're eating alone conservatives, but you're working at a place with thousands of foreign co-workers, what did you think was going to happen?

Why would laziness on the part of a single politician invalidate the work of 100+ years of research work on the part of hundreds of scientists?

Considering that the idea of CO2 emissions being a problem for the climate was first suggested in the 1800's, and the industrial revolution started in the 1700's with the invention of the steam engine, I think maybe you're a bit off.

Have you ever taken even a single moment to actually research your point of view?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_climate_change_scie...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_Revolution

They're hiring 2/3rd more employees to act as content moderators from the sounds of the guidance.

Why would they want to move away from ads? Advertising is one of the more recession proof industries, when everyone else is suffering, it just keeps right on going.

They already run linux as their firmware, you can ssh into the cards.

I'm not sure I agree. The most important thing about designing large scale systems is dividing the total work flow into self contained pieces with easily inspected separation points.

In the grand scheme of things this doesn't have to mean microservices across a million hosts, only that you've decomposed the problem into it's elemental parts. Those parts can now be considered separately as their own elements rather than having to contend with the entire architecture in your head when a problem arises.

The best companies I've worked for have been the ones who put a lot of effort into making sure they understand who they're hiring. That usually means a lot of weird questions about topics that aren't related to the technical aspects of the job.

My last round of interviews I got the tech side without any issues, but I was subjected to three rounds of the soft skills side because they were concerned my quiet affect might not fit into the team. I did what I was asked and was rewarded with working on a fantastic team that someone had put significant effort into ensuring the personalities meshed well.

Burning a bridge because you thought someone cared too much about the wrong thing is a great way to never get another callback from everyone involved in the process. Recruiters and HR people move around a lot, and have long memories.

I'd rather someone cared too much, than not enough.

Sounds like you've got a fair bit of experience limiting your own career.

Google has been pushing for that a long while, but they've been pushing defensive patents and huge cross license agreements with everyone who will join. This is to keep the damage the patent system does contained as much as they can while the US government moves at it's glacial pace.

https://www.theverge.com/2012/10/9/3479492/google-software-p...

Patent and copyright law put a lot of stock in the idea that the creator made efforts to protect their investment. If they didn't put this very effort in, their case would be hurt down the road.

This is a problem with the IP system, not a corporation being evil, this is a corporation working in a shit system.

And they can't steal something in the public domain. Like you said, someone is going to rally to fight the patent.

They're using it to build codecs they want to remain open source and public, that means, because the patent system is fucking broken, they need to defensively patent literally everything they can possibly get surrounding the technology before a troll slips one through and starts harassing their codec users.

Because it'll happen, and the FUD will cause their partners to abandon plans to roll out the new codecs "until this legal cloud gets resolved".

It's not a matter of Google being evil, it's a matter of Google having lawyers who want to protect the intent of what they're doing.