diego

So many misunderstandings around this. For one, in the US we have free speech. That means that you can say anything you want, but you have to accept that you may lose customers for saying it. It doesn't matter if you believe that your customers shouldn't be pissed off. It's the Chinese in this case, but it could be any other relevant group.

Second, perhaps because most Americans haven't been to China and cannot read Chinese, they can't really appreciate this situation. Hong Kong is a part of China, and they are in the middle of a transition period from British rule. It's inevitable that they will be incorporated into the country, and it's really too late to try to turn that around. They could have tried to stay under British rule, but they gambled on the fact that they expected a very different future for China. The gamble did not pay off, and it is what it is. The rest of China (not just the government) wants them to assimilate, and it will happen. If you live in Hong Kong and you don't like that, really your only reasonable option is to move. It's not a given that the protestors are in the "right" and it's not a given that there is a right side on this. Just misaligned interests.

Failing is really the default for startups. A better question would be, why do you think you did not succeed. I'm guessing they simply did not make enough money, which is the norm.

EDIT: if you read the article, they "failed to monetize" so there's your answer. Because they failed to monetize, it's hard to know what they could have done differently to monetize.

Are they becoming more frequent or is the press mentioning them more often? Citations needed.

I question the assertion that this is expensive for spammers. The whole premise is that a spammer would not consider this worth the cost, and do something else with the computing power instead. Why? It completely depends on what the captcha is being used for.

"how to succeed: pick the right thing to do." How do you know it was the right thing? Because you succeeded.

You are assuming that the driver's phone is the one connected. The typical use case is a couple, where either can drive. The first one to look up directions is the one who connects the phone. I do this all the time with my wife. Sometimes we have to disconnect one phone and connect the other so the passenger can continue using the phone without killing the map for the driver.

Take a guess at the number of cities in the world with over one million people. See how many there are, and how many of them you knew existed. Think of how many countries have companies worth 4B. The world is a big place.

Why would you expect that a bank would hold your electronic euros for less money than a negative yield bond would cost?

Why would it even mean for mathematics to collapse? It's obvious that if a branch is based on rules that don't make sense, at some point that branch will break. But it only breaks to the root node, which is fine. But why would the whole edifice collapse?

The thing is, 90% coverage is not that great. What happens is that you understand common words that make up for a lot of structure, but when an uncommon word appears it's probably important to the sentence. For example, "son, if you go to the plumbf tomorrow morning don't forget to pick up some zlonks."

98% is closer to what you need in order to read a text and have an idea of what's going on. See this article:

https://www.sinosplice.com/life/archives/2016/08/25/what-80-...

That is a clickbait title. The reality is that it hasn't yet finished building a railroad to somewhere.

yes, of course. And obviously I would do it with loops, so you don't have to. Ultimately a Turing machine needs to have loops somewhere. The best you can do is abstract them.

I'd use functional programming, which is what I'd thought this post would be about. It seems the author is not familiar with the concepts of mapping, reducing and filtering. This is just a map() command.

No, it doesn't matter if they do wrong things lots of the time. What matters is that if a deep fake surfaces then they can use the pictures of that specific period of time to prove they were not doing that. If they happened to be doing something right at that specific time, that's enough.

This is a case of an editorialized title removing useful information. I read it and I thought "this is absolutely obvious, are they going to be talking about mapping apps taking pictures of your backyard?"

The original title is about something completely different.

That is not a good answer. It's perfectly possible for computers to boot in a fraction of a second.

The argument that computers need to go from a useless state S0 to a useful state S1 and that takes a long time is just bullshit. The question is, how close can you bring S0 to S1. This is a question of optimization. What happens is that S1 is different for different computer configurations, and processing needs to happen. Then the question becomes, how much effort do software companies spend optimizing that processing? The answer is "as much as they feel that they need to."

Computer boot times have been constant over many years because performance gains enable companies to add more features. As long as the boot time stays within tolerable bounds for the typical user, there is no need to optimize further. But there are tons of other computer systems in the world (particularly embedded) that must boot instantly, and they do so.

I understand your intention, but you have a bit of an uphill battle. Users have to trust you on many levels:

1) The app running on your phone is powered by the software on github.

2) This will not change.

The only way I would use an app like this would be if it were offered by a financial institution that holds my assets. If your app caused me to lose money, I would be SOL. If their's did, they would be required to answer for it.

It's not so simple. The value of living in cities has increased because of economies of scale, population has grown and space in cities is limited. It's not like people want to build houses in the middle of nowhere. It does not follow that a positive return on real estate means that we're worse at producing shelter.

Well, they can sell the stock. If you don't believe in the CEO and can't fire him, you get out. Sounds like same shareholders are trying to stage a coup, good luck with that.

Too big for what? Without some qualification, the question doesn't make sense. Is it too big for it to be worthwhile to YC itself? YC obviously doesn't think so. Is too big for startups to feel like they are getting a good deal? You'd have to poll the startups themselves and find out. Is it too big for investors? No, investors like having a big funnel.

As an investor, having 200 startups to comb through is similar to being an employer with 200 resumes to choose from. 200 resumes is better than 100. It's your job to filter and choose the ones you're interested in.

Curious why do you think it's useful. What do you imagine happens in large organizations without full-time receptionists?

One thing that not many people talk about: there's an oversupply of VC funds spawned by the technological waves of the 90s (internet), 2000s (mobile) and everything in between. Today there isn't a clear wave, yet those funds need to deploy capital. Now there are too many funds pursuing not enough VC-worthy opportunities. The VC bubble will pop sooner or later.

For those who don't know, CQ means "who's there?" in HAM code. It's an invitation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CQ_(call)

In this particular case it doesn't seem too bad. Someone's name and address are not (or should not be) particularly sensitive information. Passwords are, and that's why best practices only keep a one-way function of the password ("encrypted" implies that it can be decrypted to plaintext, which should not be the case).

Luckily you can sign up for Quora with any name and email. You have to assume that no matter how hard a site tries to protect your info, it will get compromised sooner or later. The best they can do is what Quora does: demand as little info about you as they need.

> previous reviews of the scientific literature have concluded that a well-planned and varied vegetarian diet can meet the needs of athletes, as it was for Roman gladiators or legionnaires.

What does this even mean? "Meet the needs" is relative to a certain quality of life. Even if the gladiators or legionnaires were vegetarian (questionable even with the paper's assumptions), who knows what their quality of life was. Probably not acceptable to our standards.

What kind of work do you do? For some types of development, basic knowledge of mathematics will take you reasonably far. Knowing more math opens up possibilities. For example, I recently found myself wanting to add features to some flight control software for drones. I wanted a return-to-home feature, which involved implementing a PID controller for gps navigation. I studied control theory in college decades ago, and hadn't used it for anything professionally until this year. Also, autonomous navigation requires taking vectorial inputs from sensors that must be rotated to the frame of reference of the drone (e.g. the accelerometer). I could not have participated in this project if I didn't have enough knowledge of calculus and algebra.

Do you know anyone important who spent 100% of their time programming? That rules out books, talks, blog posts, entrepreneurship, etc. That's your answer.

These drones can have any sensor you want. IR, motion detection, radio signals, you name it. Hiding from AI equipped with the right sensors is very hard. The only advantage you have is that you can hear them coming. For now anyway.

a $40 micro drone is training. It's a completely harmless toy, even less harmful than a soccer ball. This is not a $1000 hobby grade drone (for which you definitely should undergo training). A $40 drone typically has extremely weak brushed motors. You don't need training to operate a frisbee but you definitely need training to operate a discus. This comment is an example of how the general public does not know enough about the subject matter.

That's not a flight controller, it's a simple power distribution board, most likely [1]. Flying wings generally don't need flight controllers, they just need two servos and an electronic speed controller for the motor. A flight controller is nice because it can stabilize the plane, and it can also provide autonomous flying it it has a gps. If you just want to fly around like that, no need.

[1] https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/61k-Sva2oYL...