cargo8

I think we can agree to disagree on which is worse.

The next president is making a bunch of public actions that will be critiqued, audited, and probably checked / balanced as the government was set up to do. The CEO of reddit is SECRETLY tampering / modifying the "speech" and content of private citizens without any checks, balances, or even repercussions (so far).

I'd also argue that reddit has a more direct engagement model with private citizens that makes this hit closer to home (i.e. if we actually were real-life friends, or internet buddies for years, and one of our messages/comments to each other was modified that could cause far more direct impact — e.g. "you" convince me to commit a crime because you have my trust as a "personal" friend)

I'm honestly surprised he publicly admitted to it at all, and I'd further be shocked if he doesn't end up stepping down because of this incident.

Technically, sure.

But, usually a company of this size/scale puts in place restrictions so that accessing privileged abilities like this is extremely difficult and requires authorizations / clearances / permissions from users, etc.

Generally big / public tech company employees are not even allowed to LOOK at PII or the data of a specific user name etc. You run all tests on staging / fake populated DBs only, etc.

Because it undermines the integrity of literally every post on the site.

If the admins have the ability to modify posts and comments without any notice or indication, this opens the door to... - Creating false content via discrete edits that violate ToS, allowing for false flag to ban a user/thread/subreddit - Any comment or post used as evidence (ahem, e.g. Hillary Clinton's IT guy, mention of drugs or crimes, literally anything like that) now is called into question. Wouldn't surprise me if he now has to testify that posts were not altered if it is accepted as evidence, etc. - Literally anything else where a verified identity post and people assume it is what they (the person) said. AMAs are basically the thing that took Reddit mainstream, so that is kind of a big deal.

The title of this post is pretty deceptive — it clearly implies that the Fiber project altogether is being halted.

My understanding from this article amongst others is that they are simply rethinking their approach to, rather than laying down fiber throughout all target cities, beam high speed internet from local way points to the roofs of high rises (like WebPass does in SF, which they acquired).

It is pretty reasonable to, if this seems a viable approach, halt expensive infrastructure operations to lay down hard wired fiber and cut the jobs associated with these logistics and operations.

Because they are owned by Braintree (big payments processor) who is owned by PayPal (who used to be owned by eBay before being spun out to be independent)

This was the funniest writing style since the WAT talks lol

Even more info here http://techcrunch.com/2015/10/29/whats-upthere/

Epic

PS: Pro-tip, add a middle initial to your LinkedIn - the guys using auto-fill without even looking are an easy filter since it is part of your first name.

I understand your sentiment, the reason that this is such a stigma in the industry is because if you do have the ever-elusive, ever-exclusive, high performing team - a single person who doesn't fit in (not saying in what aspect, could be culture, skill, collaboration, communication, etc) will ruin the entire team and the team's momentum.

Amazing program that pairs you with a top-tier tech startup as well as exposing you to a great network of industry professionals and other young engineers!

I see your point, but Steve always seemed to think Android never stood a chance anyway. He didn't have to say WHY Apple was better than Android, he just pointed out some major (philosophical, not product) negatives, as you say the porn store, etc.

Tim Cook has been uncharacteristically (well, for Apple, not for himself) direct in stating that Google is their top competitor and making implicit jabs at their business model.

On the other hand, what this also says (to people who like awesome cloud services) is :: "Unfortunately this also means that our predictive keyboard, Siri, and other predictive services will never be that good."

Google STREET VIEW car, not one of their self-driving cars...

I hate websites where they tell you literally nothing about how they achieve what they do. Not signing up just to find out what you do...

Google never ceases to amaze me for taking the initiative to really pursue and commercialize these things.

If people are interested, here is a relevant research paper in IEEE about the massive potential contact lenses have to mate technology and bioinformatics: http://spectrum.ieee.org/biomedical/bionics/augmented-realit...

> It is ugly and clunky and ridiculously expensive for what it does. To me, that’s everything. Same thing with all existing smartwatches — the problem isn’t the idea, it’s the actual execution. There are no points for being first to market with a bad product.

This is just wrong. Google gains massive points in my book for putting something like Glass out there. They get points for showing the world a glimpse of what the future can be, and getting everyone else to think about it. The wearables revolution was started with Glass, and whether or not Glass ends up being the flagship product of the wearables market it doesn't matter. Google started it either way.

Google is probably one of the biggest single contributors to pushing the web platform over and has been the largest contributor to the webkit project until they recently forked it into Blink.

Apple is great and all and probably everyone will agree they have far and away the best hardware and products, but Google pushes technology in ways just to get the world thinking of what is possible.

Yup, this. Don't see any benefit other than more granular time controls which seems like overkill for a simple silence-or-show notifications switch.

I started using evernote's web clipper to just save all articles, blog posts, etc that I read. Clipping the articles easily stays under the free tier and that way I can easily sift through tags and search to find articles I read in the past. I used to think "Oh, it'll be easy to find with a google search later". Turns out that's not really true, and it's much easier to keep your own searchable archive.

Very interesting...

Any chance that this will mean the Govt can't subpoena data from this data center if it is floating far enough from the US coast? Or does it not matter because clearly the US will be the closest harbor?

Not totally sure either, but my best guess is they're aesthetically pleasing and supposedly ergonomically great, which is I guess appreciated amongst the crowd that spends all day sitting in front of them.

They seem to have a fair amount of research to back up their ergonomics (see this blog post regarding Aeron chair design: http://www.hermanmiller.com/research/solution-essays/the-ben...)

Pro tip: wait to do the assassination missions until after you've completed the main storyline. That way you can invest the players' ~25 million in the stocks you are directly affecting and make bank.

You supposedly can also game the market by investing in competing companies (like Cluckin Bell and Burger Shot) and just destroying a bunch of the opposite companies. Then after the drop, reinvest in the opposite as they equalize and come back (or just keep going back and forth). Haven't tried this yet, though.

Two points that have me confused: 1) I don't fully understand how Android is stifling innovation in local-mobile services simply by having a dominant market share. From where I am standing (which admittedly, is in android's favor as I very much enjoy using and developing for android) the platform is more open to development of advanced local-mobile services and applications due to fewer restrictions of background usage of sensors and services (vs. iOS, for example). In addition, I see Google pushing the envelope much more and much faster than iOS in terms of providing its own local-mobile services and applications (they're potential data harvesting evil-ness aside).

2) Why do you trust Microsoft more than Google when they have pretty much blow-for-blow have equivalent services, applications, and (potential) scalability in online and mobile services? Is it simply because they have bought the Nokia devices and services division and are folding it under the Microsoft brand, making them a true hardware manufacturer (in the sense that they stand to benefit if they profit from hardware sales)? As I see it, the big three mobile companies (Apple, Google, MS - sorry BB) all now have their own top-to-bottom mobile stacks, except Google has kept Moto silo'd away from their core business. So are you simply pointing out that Google's current business model is still to undercut in hardware prices (not try to profit) and make the rest up in services, while assuming that Microsoft will not go this route (they probably will)? Also, all that being said, Google's hardware stance certainly appears to be changing if they really make a mainstream push for Glass and plan to start making their own hardware as they have hinted at (Glass, Pixel, Nexus Q, Moto X).

I could see a way where if the device was fitted with springs of some sort it would be able to "stand" or lift itself to prevent that kind of friction (of course there would be a limit to the size of the paper stack on top, but you could probably design it / fit it with springs such that the limit is practical (and far more than the amount of paper someone would logically use for this)

This is freaking beautiful. I hope it can work.

The problem is the response to that is almost always "Oh you mean like ______?". The answer to that is almost certainly no, but you can't really say or explain why unless you reveal too much about your startup at too early a stage. Then people get the impression you are working on some stupid idea that has already been done.

There are a lot of reasons not to reveal what you are working on exactly, but giving the industry isn't necessarily the best thing to do either. A lot of experienced founders will also do this because they don't want wild rumors flying around about what they are building / working on next from a one-liner that they mentioned without wanting or being able to get into the details about it with some stranger.

Thanks for sharing :) I find Google+ to be useful for sharing photos with people who are not on Facebook, because it still allows you to share with an email address and it works pretty well. Not sure how to do this in FB, but I bet there is a way.

Also, Hangouts is probably the biggest unique thing for Google+. By far the best web-based, free, multi-person video chatting experience IMHO. Not to mention it can be tremendously productive if need be, with in-window document editing and screensharing. It's somewhat based on the video conferencing solution that Google has been using internally for remoting into meetings for a long time.

I'm curious, how many Facebook friends do you have approximately? Two years ago I removed 600 friends, and now I still have 1200 again -__-

I think none of the networks are perfect, but I don't use Google+ only for personal connections. There is quite a lot of (photographic and technology, at least) content that is interesting to read.

And not to get into any sort of Fanboy war, but which redesign are you talking about? Before Google+'s most recent redesign into the multi-column pinterest-esque layout, Facebook's timeline update is in fact quite a copy of Google+'s old design (bigger pictures in speech bubbly things out of profile pictures).

The thing is, despite it being "pretty good business" it is not what most people want from Facebook. Facebook's "good business" practices are basically conflicting (inverse relationship) with the quality and usefulness of the product from the user's perspective.

That is the big difference and why people are complaining that Facebook is too much noise, because everyone goes there just to see what their friends are up to - not what they just bought on amazon.

The perfect product is one where the company's monetary interests are aligned with the user's experience. By offering the user something they want, they mutually benefit and make money. That is just not the case, at least for what I personally want from Facebook.

The problem with Facebook's mechanism for "hiding people" is that until you go through immense effort, your experience sucks. The "Acquaintances" list (which I might add was a knee-jerk reaction to the launch of Google+) only serves to take certain people out of your stream, while plugging in other friends that you don't care about. Until you go through this cycle (which is actually phenomenal social engineering as it is self-reinforcing - once you start you have to continue otherwise it's worse) repeatedly to prune out ALL your non-close contacts, your experience sucks.

The fact that Google+ prioritizes and emphasizes splitting friends into these circles as a PRIMARY means of organizing your friends is a huge difference. Although it is cumbersome, it is a much more realistic representation of human interaction, making friends and having different groups of friends.

Funny how much a lot of this person's complaints ring exactly like a Google+ marketing campaign, and yet no one has really mentioned Google+ yet.

I totally agree, and that's not to say that Google+'s stream isn't equally filled with content I don't care about, but that is also because I followed a random circle of 500 "interesting people".

Google+'s focus on smaller circles as it's primary feature, and I think the larger emphasis on sharing with circles and not the public at large (unless you are one of the internet famous) attempts to give user's the power to interact in this way. And if you use gmail, it's basically email + all the rich content social network benefits have to offer.