chalkandpaste

Oh man, I miss what so hard. Can't find anything comparable today. Those were the golden days, when I could find obscure albums that you couldn't even pay good money for.

I didn't pin the blame on them. I place it as a cultural issue.

This is a very short-sighted view. Yes it has some immediate benefit in terms of pay, but you have to consider the long-term societal tradeoff of not developing addictive mental candy for people or developing societally useful technologies (or vice-versa, as it now stands). We can focussed on getting paid a lot now, or improving the wealth of everyone and generative the value we can all enjoy later.

This. I'd always assumed Zuck was like this, great to see some confirmation that my expectations for him weren't too low.

My point was that this isn't as significant as they make it out to be--comparing it to the transition to mobile is marketing BS.

> ... biggest companywide reorientation since our shift from desktops to mobile phones...

Putting 20 people behind it?

Yes, he sure doesn't know a dn thing about jazz...

Alice and Joe Henderson were doing great stuff in the 70's together too.

Beyond the chaos of the late 60's era in jazz, there are a lot of new directions jazz has taken since then. Jazz doesn't stand still, and I think that is core to it's nature. If this guy was looking to continue second wave bop for all eternity, he should just throw on some Branford/Wynton Marsalis and pretend like the 60's never happened.

I came here expected here read: Don't use MongoDB, use your noggin you figure out which database you should actually use.

Sounds like all the bad decisions about who to hire (low cost, inexperienced workers) and who to fire (higher cost, experienced workers), how long to force people to work, overuse of automation, etc., has caught up with Tesla. And now Musk wants to externalize it so Tesla doesn't look bad and loose _even_ more orders of the model 3.

I agree but I didn’t want to say that as it seemed obvious (at least to me).

Mozilla, a non-profit, which produces primarily a browser with currently a small market share, needs to do something to bring in some revenue. Having Google as the default search at one time (and may still be) a revenue stream for them.

But on the last point about advertising. I disagree with your statement. In many cases, advertising allows consumers to know about services and goods they might otherwise not know about. This isn’t inherently bad. I believe the adtech way, though, is because it puts at harm a lot of people’s data for, often times, a very negligible benefit in reaching consumers.

I disabled everything from Pocket I possibly can when I downloaded and setup Firefox, in the `about:config`. That integration annoys me to no end. Who decided I needed pocket in my browser?

How does it not (potentially) skew the market? If one such alternative plant had a higher operating efficiency and therefore lower cost, wouldn't the fact that there is a law preventing the lower cost from being reached skew the market? Am I missing something?

Not really. One of the things prohibiting the market is the Price-Anderson Act, which stipulates, irrespective of the sort of reactor (and since there have been newer and cheaper reactor designs) a level of insurrance that nuclear plants need. Effectively, this has made it impossible to enter the market with reactor designs that are smaller and safer and do not require the insurance proscribed by the act. I don’t personally know operational costs for these other sorts of reactors, but suffice it to say there are artificial limitations in place that skew this market.

No issue with what you're saying here. The primary point I wanted to emphasize was that our application of regulations to the telephone system is not in line with whom I was replying to said, that there was around a 30-40 year gap.

>Those were built out by private companies, but operated under a regulatory regime called "common carrier,"

No. "Common Carrier" classification under Title II of the Communications act of 1934 comes more than 30 years after the introduction of the telephone, much longer than the telegraph. More than that, it could be argued that that, along with the Kingsbury Commitment were the contributions that led to an AT&T incumbency in the first place.

> ... if your company is valued at $62 billion, you can afford to give your workers health care.

What? Just because it's "valued" that way (that is, someone thinks it's worth that much) doesn't mean the entity has money in the bank or that such a change wouldn't negatively affect the companies inflow/outflow.

Not that I support Uber or Lyft (I'm best described as ambivalent), or really have the facts for myself, but this was just so illogical I wonder how this guy can be the city's attorney.

The issue is google doesn't care about they're users. As long as it's good enough to keep the data-gravy-train going.

I believe the issue was repeated stress causing tendons to tear in one leg and one arm. There have been reports that the machinery Tesla uses puts unnecessary strain on the body and the hours this man was working, I can easily see this happening.

Hey I don’t blame you for being skeptical, it’s the way of the internet. I don’t think media attention is what he wants as he is still attempting to work through legal recourse.

THIS IS FANTASTIC.

I’ve had a friend, a specialist engineer doing failure analysis, who has been largely incapacitated from any work because of Tesla. He sustained an injury during a high urgency project (which failed, whodathunk) which required him to work 16 hour days for a few months. During the course of this, he sustained injuries to arms and legs due to machinery issues (the machinery at Tesla often has workers contorting into unnatural positions, I’ve heard). It’s been 2 years and my friend is unable to pay for the requisite operations and can’t get a cent out of Tesla. He is unable to work because of his injuries and so really has been confined to his home for 2 years now.

I have no respect for Musk. An employer who has no respect for their employees, a leader who has no regard for those he leads, is morally bankrupt and seeks only their own good.

I have two issues with this article.

First, aren’t people going to be looking to pair up with someone in the same socioeconomic class anyway? That’s what we’ve mostly been doing over the course of history. That an app is based on this is not surprising. And I have a hard time believe apps perpetuate what we are already doing or exacerbate it.

The second is the graph in the middle regarding distance from city center and population with a degree. Haven’t we, in general, been getting more degrees since the points of comparison? How is this, again not already distributed according to pre-existing trends? The curve also does not change significantly besides being shifted up (corresponding a generally high rate of university degrees). Is there a actually significant shift happening with those without college degrees with regard to distance from city center? I think not, or they would have showed it and it would have been more convincing.

> Facebook, however, disputed the implication that it can't exercise proper oversight over these types of apps, telling CNBC that it can't control information that companies mislabel.

What does that mean? That’s utter nonsense. I work in an industry where data is just as, if not more, sensitive (health and finance data) and they somehow manage to do this correctly (well, at least not have an embarrassing mistake that makes the Zuck look like the irresponsible unmatured kid he still is). But what they don’t do is willy nilly let people, without human oversight, access data. Who is that dumb? This is criminal negligence in not even guarding against the possibility of misuse.

Technically it's here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16323168

But this is the only post that got comments.

I think someone just wanted this thread shutdown...

So, Apple, the richest company on earth, wants to use more bandwidth without paying more, even though bandwidth is a scarce resource and other people have invested millions to providing the infrastructure to transmit data?

Apple's stock price remains constant because they are artificially inflating their own stock through increased dividends (more than 10bn per year) and stock buyback (increased to 175bn for this next year). They do this so the major shareholders don't lose their value (or, I'm guess this is so).

Apple is dropping faster than excrement in the bowl.

So many parens. Much cumbersome.

Why not Haskell?

"... as mathematics is avoided in many cases where it would greatly aid in reasoning about systems, due to the quantity of people who dislike it."

Computer science at Penn has been doing this especially. In the overview of mathematics course at Penn, any mention of algebra has been removed. They used to have a section on toy RSA--deleted. It seems like they want to remove all mathematical rigor here, just to turn out more people with a CS degree. People can hardly walk away doing a proof, like the showing how a greedy algorithm such as Kruschkal's can work. To see this for me is frustrating to say the least. So I must concur.

Side story. The other thing is, CS has nearly doubled since I attended, 4 years ago, and they have NOT hired faculty to keep up. Class sizes are getting ridiculous.