Founder of IndexTank (acquired by LinkedIn), as well as Flaptor (a consulting company that spawned IndexTank). You can follow me on Twitter: @dbasch. My email is the same as my Twitter handle, at gmail.
[ my public key: https://keybase.io/dbasch; my proof: https://keybase.io/dbasch/sigs/IzO64_np6HgSMCxjwdY9EqLq0knH9Uc8JNDgF2mhe7I ]
I don't think "If you can just avoid dying, you get rich" has proven true. I've invested in startups (including YC ones) that followed this to a tee. They never found product-market fit, they could have been going forever, investors forgot about them. Some are still going, some managed to get acquired, some closed shop.
It's really a false dichotomy, only a small fraction of the companies that avoid dying manage to explode. You just don't hear about the rest.
It sounds like the old-style parachute is not the best solution for this problem, but I'm sure they must have come up with other ideas and ruled them out. Why not hundreds of small parachutes? Why not wings or rotors to stabilize it? I'm curious to know.
That's why people like you have a moral obligation to not try to weasel your way out of jury duty. Have you ever served on a jury? It can actually be a good experience. What matters the most is not the jury really, is that your defense lawyer is competent.
Calling this a war is the reason the saying "pick your battles" exists. Anyone who is a parent knows that kids always find ways to hurt themselves, there is no shortage of opportunities. Might as well make playgrounds safe, kids don't care as long as they have fun.
Were you paying with a credit card? In Argentina the norm is to ask for id when paying with credit card, and if you're a foreigner the default would be to ask for your passport.
It’s not my definition. You’re twisting words. Location data is just not “anonymizable” at all because it’s always possible to combine it with other sources.
If you're going to nitpick like that, then no data is ever anonymized if it contains any information at all. When you start combining pieces of data, they all contribute information that helps you narrow down individuals until there is only one possible match.
Someone should invite that economist to a modern rock climbing gym. Then explain every piece of technology that made those wall designs affordable and commonplace in most major cities. Being able to train in state-of-the-art facilities, focusing exactly on the moves you need to make, day and night, rain or shine, that's crucial.
Anonymizing does not mean that it has to be one-way. You can give other people an anonymized version of your data, but you can keep the key to deanonymize that data (and hand it out selectively). I don't know who is assuming that anonymizing means the information has to be thrown away and lost to EVERYONE.
It does, see my other comment. It means employees CANNOT deanonymize the data. If done properly, the key is off network and off premises, only retrievable with a lot of red tape.
No, it's not the same. It could be stored anonymized, and the de-anonymizing data is somewhere else, and it can ONLY be accessed with a court order. I don't know why my original comment is being downvoted, it's an important distinction.
Edit: stop with the downvotes please. Whether you agree or not, anonymizing something does not always mean it cannot be de-anonymized. And who can do it (and under what circumstances) is important.
"With a court order, this data can be used to identify and track an individual...
... which means that it is stored de-anonymized in the carrier servers"
No, it does not mean that it's stored de-anonymized. It means that it can be de-anonymized if required by a court order.
EDIT because all the downvotes, this is not nitpicking. The deanonymizing data is ELSEWHERE, not on the servers. It takes a court order to obtain it, employees cannot use it. It's an important point.
The problem here is not so much Facebook (a company doing what companies do) as it is the regulatory system they fit in. This situation is unprecedented, as no single company had ever concentrated the media power Facebook has. Our legislators are barely starting to understand the problem, the ball is in their court really. In the meantime, Facebook will sit at the intersection of what's best for the company and what the law allows.
Censorship and deplatforming exist because companies have nothing to do with what was originally defined as free speech, and lots of us believe this is fine (including myself). If you want to take the phrase "free speech" and make it mean what you want it to mean, that's on you.
No need for the patronizing, almost obnoxious tone. I mostly disagree with what you just said, and not for lack of questioning. Current laws or not, you’re not entitled to the attention of others, and I don’t think you should be. If you want attention, you need to earn it.
Facebook has nothing to do with free speech. Free speech is "you don't go to jail for saying something." You're not entitled to a platform for shouting out loud.
That's a nonsequitur. The California coast is pretty dense, the rest of the state has large amounts of empty space and national parks. Nobody would build a high-speed rail through Yosemite or Death Valley.
And there is a good reason for more one-to-many pairings: more choices. Back in the day less desirable partners had more chances because of proximity. Today it's easier to search for partners (for the same reason it's easier to shop), so more desirable people have more choices.
I don't suppose it's a company that commits treason, rather an individual making a decision. If so, it may depend on the nationality of the decider. What if, say, the Twitter community manager for France decided to take down such a tweet by a French official.
1) You're assuming this ONLY discusses the possibility of the US declaring war via tweet. The article clearly talks about ANY country that could declare war via tweet.
This is the type of title that I considered sensationalized. "Before I die" is a cliche only used to grab attention, because obviously there are no lists of books to read after one dies.
What would Wall Street care? All that matters is that a company goes public while there is still some (perceived, at least) upside for retail investors. If the main company of going public is to give investors / employees liquidity, then of course they are going to bomb. If the company has real upside, then it will be fine.