Also, why do you need an android version at first? Author says the app is useless without it but I don't understand why
535 karma · joined December 11, 2011
Also, why do you need an android version at first? Author says the app is useless without it but I don't understand why
I don't see how that happens though unless reddit abandons some of its principles
These are unpaid leaves, right?
I think it's a great idea, particularly for a business of a certain size. I know many of my peers leave their jobs because they are looking for an extended break. If they didn't have to leave, it could be a win for both employees and employers.
100% agree that HN's UI is great, but I'm not sure anyone would look at it and say, "oh that's gorgeous." Or at least I wouldn't
After all, the purpose of UI is not to be beautiful, but too many people still think it is
I only recently got engaged in HackerNews. The UI isn't beautiful. There are minimal features. It's my favorite content aggregator right now. Obviously, HN isn't a blogging platform, but it accomplishes many of the things medium is trying to.
I wonder if many more partners will give up on medium? Hackernoon is moving away because of a change to medium's advertising policy.
More than anything, I didn't realize how long these cases seem to take. But I wonder: if there was a way to reduce the duration of the cases, would that reduce the impact on whistleblowers? Is that possible somehow? Retaliation is also a big concern, of course, as the article makes clear.
Also, I found this interesting: >the first documented whistle-blowing case in the United States took place in 1777, not long after the signing of the Declaration of Independence, when a group of naval officers, including Samuel Shaw and Richard Marven, witnessed their commanding officer torturing British prisoners of war. When they reported the misconduct to Congress, the commanding officer charged Shaw and Marven with libel, and both men were jailed. The following year, Congress passed a law protecting whistle-blowers, and Shaw and Marven were acquitted by a jury.
Of course when a substitute improves, some people will switch. However, the root cause is the declining quality and lack of improvements to the system that even gives a substitute the chance to compete.
I honestly don't understand how 100 years ago nyc was able to build an expansive subway system and today it takes decades to add a new station. I know it's a combination of land costs, labor costs, corruption, regulation, underground congestion (and that the original lines were built by private companies) but I still don't really understand the situation.
We need some mechanism to increase costs (or fundamentally change the way data ownership works)
"The National Registry of Exonerations has documented 553 cases since 1989 in which someone was convicted on false or misleading forensic evidence and later cleared. The growing list of exonerations includes a Texas man whose 1987 murder conviction, based on bite-mark evidence, was thrown out in December, and an Illinois man declared innocent in January in the retrial of a murder case that hinged on dubious ballistics evidence.
But the exonerations likely represent only a fraction of the cases in which faulty forensics sent innocent people to prison, researchers say."
Is there any research estimating how many wrongly convicted people may be incarcerated? How could that even be estimated?
Completely agree constant vigilance is important. It also shouldn't matter that many employees can switch jobs. All employees cannot (personal circumstances, visas, etc). It also doesn't waive the company of its responsibility for fair pay.
It's hard to build up to complex solutions when we (society, broadly defined) seem unable to agree on the basic facts.
I don't know for sure if the past was better or worse when it came to reporting the truth. Given the limited number of news outlets, radio stations and tv stations historically, there were at least a limited set of reporting to agree on (independent of the accuracy of that reporting). This was probably very helpful in enabling more complex solutions.
Service based models (with training, support or integration) also can have perverse incentives on the open source software. To make those services valuable, you need the product to be worse than it otherwise could be.
Additionally, the characterization that open core companies stop improving the open source software and only improve the proprietary software might be true at some firms but is the extreme.
Well, that's definitely a scary framing. Does anyone have sources for this specific prediction?
Aside from launching his (for-profit) climate fund, (for-profit) vc investments, and funding research, I'd be very interested in more details on how the money will be used.
A couple additional thoughts: people assume remote work expands your talent pool to everyone. I don't believe it does. You're limited by time zones and by autonomy. Not everyone performs at a high level in a remote context. You need people who are very organized, disciplined and self-starters. Additionally, it can be very hard to unplug in a remote first context so you need a culture that prioeitizes time offline (I.e out of the office)
CockroachDB has an interesting model, where they've tried to closely couple their open source and premium products. This coupling makes it harder for third parties to build against the open source and even easier for enterprises to use it.
Do people here have examples of companies that are taking innovative approaches to the licensing/OSS question?
Netflix had seemed to be one of the few tech companies that could do no wrong of late. It's built a reputation as a place people want to work and can be proud they work. I wonder how a story like this affects employee retention and recruitment.
Were there reactions from Netflix employees?
Has anyone read any good responses to this?
They've also sparked fears of a debt trap (https://www.npr.org/2018/10/08/641625157/a-new-chinese-funde...) and scenarios where countries default on debt so China will control major components of the infrastructure.
Then you'd be free to chat over the top of the boring bits...
I agree that replicating the full social context of TV will be difficult
Any literature/thoughts on when to commoditize complements rather than trying to vertically integrate? Private repos might be a complement to github's other business, but it doesn't naturally follow that they should commoditize it in all situations
In Triumph of the City, Edward Glaser talks a lot about the effect of regulation in housing markets on pricing and new construction. He uses Houston as the prime example.
Of course, deregulation in the housing market is far from a panacea and comes with a number of trade-offs
"We find that the same minority applicants who faced lower approval rates on auto loans do not face lower approval rates on credit cards, even during the same year. This finding suggests that the human element of auto lending, rather than differences in hard information, leads to the lower approval rates for minorities."
The privacy use case in blockchain has trade-offs and is not a panacea. There are some situations where the centralized efficiency outweighs the risks
I find it interesting that OP says public crypto failed because of both fundamental misunderstandings and immature tech (internet trying to compete with newspapers in the 80s). Eventually, the internet was able to compete with newspapers and I think eventually public blockchain will compete with centralized companies.
Networks can benefit from economies of scale without the rent seeking bottlenecks of centralized agents. I agree with op that in some cases centralization naturally happens but it doesn't follow that this is true in all cases.
On a diff note, has anyone read the Master Switch that OP recommended? Worth reading?
I don't think that means public crypto has failed or will go away. It just needs time to mature as a technology.
Fwiw, I find it interesting that OP says public crypto failed because of both fundamental misunderstandings and immature tech (internet trying to compete with newspapers in the 80s). Eventually, the internet was able to compete with newspapers and I think eventually public blockchain will compete with centralized companies.
Networks can benefit from economies of scale without the rent seeking bottlenecks.