entangld

I've found this happens often with clients who are the least knowledgable in your area of expertise. Sometimes their insecurity compels them to avoid getting screwed, by making sure they're getting everything they can out of you.

Other clients, with lower expectations, might be overjoyed by the the same efforts. All clients are not equal.

I'm sure it's possible for people to be a bit apathetic and support widespread data snooping, but I'm wary of the inevitable attacks and possible drummed up support for current policies.

Race is something that affects people's lives in the real world, beyond boxes on applications. This argument is becoming a little academic.

There is a vast amount of knowledge one needs to learn just to be a beginner. I don't blame so many idea people for trying to find shortcuts.

Some intelligent people are humble about the subjects they lack expertise in. Doesn't looking for confidence carries a risk of finding people who sound better than they are?

I don't think her statement, that she uses Amazon data to find other books her readers enjoy, is an admission of immoral conduct. She said a quarter of the books she recommends are from information she gained from Amazon. I believe she's referring to how she discovered them and not the reason she recommends them. Of course I am giving her the benefit of the doubt because the quality of the content on her site is generally high.

She serves her niche of intellectuals fairly well and I think spamming with lower quality content for the sake of making money would be noticed quickly by them. The donations on top of the affiliate links seems a bit much, but I think people might still donate and or purchase in order to show support for her work.

But when these conversations turn into arguments it all comes down to some applicants being more "qualified."

There are lots of reasons people get hired to do jobs they've never done before and lot of those reasons are subjective.

We just finished interviews last week and a few people who looked perfect on paper were not even considered after the interviews.

I was one of two interviewers and I only threw softballs.

Like the article stated, it's due to lack of experience in the job they are applying for, coupled with the skills gap. Employees are asking for more experience than applicants have.

Intelligence is not a factor if they are only looking for experience.

Your eye might need to jump around more because you're not used to the new design yet. Sometimes an article might say "discuss" which just means 0 comments. This would make that much clearer.

You might say you shouldn't have to "get used to" a good redesign, but after using a website for years, almost everyone would need to overcome old habits.

HN might be designed to compact a large amount of data in a small area, but reading tiny letters isn't exactly good UX.

When you're trying to have a rational discussion about which factors contribute to certain effects, it's better to exhaust all possible theories before attempting to prove that "some people are just better than others."

If you're going to say I'm wrong, at least point out how I'm wrong. There isn't a big difference between what I said and:

>>corrupt governments siphon wealth into privileged hands at the expense of the public good.<<

The effect is the same. Too much money in too few hands. Countries don't only need the rule of law to protect us from violence. We also need it to protect us from semi-legal forms of theft.

Monarchs gathered wealth and provided protection, and they've been going out of business for quite a while now. Mexico has the richest person in the world along with a lot of corruption and lots of very poor people. How can a place be viable enough to support multibillionaires, and still have people living in shacks?

I'm trying to understand the truth.

Maybe this isn't the grand theory to support them all, but it reminds me a lot of why cancer is so destructive. One part of a large community using far too many resources. There could be a cluster theory to support the causes of cancer as well, but cluster theories are very hard to find solutions for. We don't just need to casually understand the problem. We need to prevent it if possible.

At least this theory gives us a reasonable means of experimenting with and analyzing future failures.

Edit:removed my opinion of others' opinions.

An idea is a signal. It's difficult to send complex signals over long distances while maintaining fidelity. We have to focus on the delivery. So we engage our audience emotionally to get them to listen and repeat messages we want people to understand. Subtle abstract notions are even difficult to deliver at close range. How difficult would it be to deliver one to a crowd without adding more energy (emotion) or simplifying it.

We shouldn't always blame people for not understanding. Sometimes there are good reasons for doing things the way we do them.

Voting requires the voter to make decisions, hard decisions. Even decisions about other people's money. Sometimes the status quo is unbearable and something has to be done. Where exactly is the unfairness in taxing wealthier people at the same percentage as middle class and others? I'm pro capitalism, but the argument that capital gains taxes need to be lower than income is a separate argument. There are probably great reasons for capital gains taxes to be much lower than income, but fairness isn't one of those reasons.

1. Volunteerism doesn't scale.

2. Charity doesn't support everything. I've done non-profit fundraising and rich people like to give money to put their names on buildings a lot more than they like to fund operating expenses in local charities.

3. People like roads and bridges and such, but a lot of services require people and salaries and it's much harder to raise money for things like that.

It's not immoral to vote for taxes. People vote for taxes that they pay and they vote for taxes that they'll never pay, but when individuals in the government don't act, the responsibility to do the difficult lies with the voters.

Yet later in the book he also mentioned mirrored language and who reflects who. He also had some sort of web program that measured the difference between the two. I think that correlates with the goals of this study.

He also does twitter stream analysis using his research and you can find that here --> http://analyzewords.com

People might dismiss it as tripe, but after you've read some of his assertions and look over your own emails you'll probably believe it makes a bit of sense.

They're showing how the nature of the medium (as an entertainment vehicle) shaped the nature of the the public's interaction with it. You could apply an abstraction like that to the internet as well.

A pipeline for mass communication was built and changed their attitudes toward authoritative sources. Our pipelines are fracturing and we probably have certain attitudes that aren't useful for the future.

Maybe I'm reading between the lines too much, but reading it figuratively is much more useful to me.

I think Marc Andreesen (not exactly sure if it was him) wrote about how companies that provide entertainment (YouTube, Twitter etc) end up being worth much more than others.

When it comes to sports, it's easy to claim they are a meritocracy because the players don't always look like the coaches or GMs. If the players and coaches always looked the same, people might question it.

People are generally blind to their biases, and some biases are wrong. For example you mentioned most founders being technical, but some VCs have promoted picking startups run by designers.

Let's not pretend venture capital is a completely neutral meritocracy. There are plenty of VCs who speak about the herd mentality within their profession and how many social factors like "who's already invested" have an effect on where money goes.

I thought venture capital would be full of strictly analytical decisions, but the more you listen to VCs talk about themselves the more you realize that they use many social factors to try to mitigate their perceived risk. It's possible things could be overlooked. It's not just complaining. How else could a person bring attention to something without talking about it? Edit: I don't see a difference between this argument and the belief that most of the startup talent is in Silicon Valley. Convincing and generally accepted, but not necessarily true.

edit: Don't just vote me down because you disagree. Please respond.

That job isn't automatic.

People don't just need any job they can get. They need a job that will pay bills for a reasonable amount of time in the future. They need to save money to live on during the next job search. Temporary low paid jobs just leave the employee stressed out and barely above water before they need to search again. I don't think many people enjoy looking for work.

I don't think it should matter where an idea comes from. I read an article from Fred Wilson that mentioned (in a good way) how surprised a CEO was to find so many good ideas coming from customer service reps (who have the most direct experience with customers). I won't assume you ignored interns, but I think stereotyping by position is a good recipe for overlooking opportunities, just to save yourself some mental fatigue.