gabbygab

If we are being honest, Facebook easily gets most of the scrutiny here because of the rampant news hysteria. Google is a very distant second.

But I agree that Apple seems to get a pass here and in the news coverage as well. Perhaps because Apple is more established or because Tim Cook has better connections with media and government? Or maybe they hire the best PR firms.

But rather than focusing on individual firms, I think we should be focusing on the monopolies these tech giants are creating and the dangerous it can be for society if they aren't "fair" actors. And if we want, we should expand it beyond tech to banking, agriculture, media, etc.

Just a few years ago we were worrying about "too-big-to-fail". And here we are with endless mergers and ever greater concentration of wealth and power and influence.

That may or may not be true, but Europe is more of a content powerhouse than a internet/tech powerhouse. Their content is a bigger money maker than their tech. So it is in their interest to punish tech and protect tech.

It's also why China has such lax IP laws. They are more of a manufacturing powerhouse than an IP powerhouse ( for now at least ) so they have little to gain with stringent IP laws. When their IP portfolio increases, you can bet that their government would be all about IP protection.

And going back even further, we had some of the laxest IP laws in the western world during the 1800s because we had so little IP to protect. Which allowed our businesses to take a ton of IP from IP-rich britain and europe.

It's greed and selfishness.

They aren't two separate wars. They are two campaigns within the same war.

You wouldn't divide ww2 into two separate wars because the germans and the soviets were allied in the first half of ww2 ( when they invaded poland and divided europe in half between them ) and then they fought a war against each other in the 2nd half.

The "continuation war" doesn't get much attention because of political reasons. Just like much of europe ( including france, most of scandinavia, netherlands, belgium, ukraine, etc ) underplays their cooperation with nazi germany for much of ww2 when nazi germany was on the ascent.

As they say, the first casualty of war is the truth. This applies not only during the war, but post-war as well.

I'm not so sure. I think poor quality sleep and proscrastination are a symptom of not wanting to do something.

Poor quality sleep never got in the way of me doing the things I wanted to do. Whether it is prepping for a field trip I was excited about or waking up in the middle of the night to watch a livestream of esports game or anything I was interested it. It's only chores, jobs or studying for something I wasn't interested in that I always put off til tomorrow. And things like meetings at works I wasn't looking forward to always contributed to poor quality sleep.

Rather than being the cause, I suspect poor quality sleep is a symptom.

I agree. And to add to your point, we are bombarded with the demographic problem message every day. So what's the solution from these experts? Are we supposed to continuously grow the population forever? I've read our social welfare programs to private industry are being threatened by demographics change and the solution is more people. Okay, then what? What happens in a generation? We are back to the same demographic problem. Is it really a solution if you are just pushing the problem one generation into the future?

Seems like the problem isn't with demographics but the economic system if the problem is perpetual and impossible to correct.

What does that matter? If we get it from directly from plants we eat or indirectly through meat, you are still getting pesticides.

Perhaps they should have used a better example than rotten tomatoes.

RT is owned by NBCUniversal and is terribly unreliable as a movie ratings aggregator. At one point it was a very useful site, but now it is useless. Might as well ask disney, nbc or studio execs on which movies to watch. We know that RT has lied and fudged ratings for financial or other purposes. It has the same problem as NewsGuard. It is controlled by industry insiders to benefit themselves and the industry. Would anyone trust an oil company ratings company controlled by oil companies?

Rather than a "rotten tomatoes" for news, I'd rather have a "meta" news or wiki site which has a running list of all the fake news that news companies have pushed out. Make it part curated and part user driven. Let users provide, comment and even contribute to it.

Make it listable by news companies and journalists. So we can see which news companies and which journalists have pushed the most fake news to the american public.

And some of the comments on this thread is a master class of virtue signaling as well. All sides seem well represented here.

Also, who is putting up walls? Be specific please. I too come from a low income "unprivileged" family and got my first computer in high school.

And the tech industry has always been diverse. It has been the most diverse and the most meritocratic industry for a long time. It's the industry where minorities and immigrants like Jerry Yang and Sergei Brin can thrive unlike more establish industries like news, media, oil, finance, transportation, etc.

Why are you painting a false image of what the tech industry is like? There are no barriers to programming. It is the most available and meritocratic and fair industries around.

Also, your entire comment had no relevance to the article. You just went on a stereotypical virtue signaling rant.

Also, do you really want diversity, or do you want a "diverse" group of people who all think like you?

I just can't handle the hypocrisy. All over HN, you support H1-B visas and claim the tech industry's success is due to diversity provided by H1-B visas. And elsewhere, you claim the tech industry is not diverse and the problem with the tech industry is the lack of diversity.

Which is it? You can't have it both ways just to suit your agenda. Be consistent.

Is it just google or all business? As china gets wealthier and as they develop, doesn't that also erode our military advantage? Isn't the overall economic growth a greater threat than one company, no matter how important? Not sure why Google is being singled out.

It might be natural or innate. Even young children associate taller with good and shorter with bad. I forget where but there was a documentary where children were asked to associate qualities to stick figures. The children gave the taller stick figures the positive qualities and the shorter stick figures the negative qualities.

We know that adults definitely associate positive qualities with height. We know voters associate positive traits to taller candidate. And females do as well - assign more positive traits to the taller male.

The NYT also enabled harvey weinstein and spread lies about yellowcake which caused an illegal war and countless dead middle easterners.

https://www.thewrap.com/media-enablers-harvey-weinstein-new-...

Giving your family subscriptions to these companies is just as bad as given then facebook accounts.

You seem to be under the childishy impression that if one is bad, then the other is good. That's not how things work. The NYT and Trump could both be bad. The NYT and Facebook can boh be back.

For all the talk about how bad social media is, so many news people are all over social media begging people to buy subscriptions.

The WSJ is owned by one of the wealthiest men in the world. Why are you begging people here to buy a subscription? If you can't make ends meeet, why not ask one of the riches men in the world to invest more in his company?

And for every journalist who died, millions of innocent people died from wars from lies pushed by these journalists. How much blood of the innocent are on the hands of the WSJ, NYT and Wapo just in the past 18 years?

If "Social Media" has been a gift to dictators, what do you think newspapers are? And what message are these journalists reporting? The message of the wealthy?

There is no denying that social media can be toxic and bad for society. But that goes for the WSJ, NYT and Wapo as well.

There have been tons of studies and reports noting how bad news is for you.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2013/apr/12/news-is-bad-ro...

Frankly, social media became toxic when it got overrun by journalists and the news industry. Politics and news is why social media is so toxic.

Renewable energy will grow for sure, but every national survey in the US and every international survey of energy use definitively shows renewable won't be anywhere near majority anytime soon.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/222066/projected-global-...

It's unrealistic to think that a national energy source is going to change drastically in such a short period of time. 10 years isn't that long of a time period.

Good point. But one way the internet is being decentralized is along national boundaries.

The chinese, russians, south koreans, japanese and even the EU are now looking to protect it's turf.

Wouldn't shock me if the internet truly becomes a network of national intranets. I suspect if the EU or any major player truly turns their nation into an intranet, it will accelerate the process with every nation controlling their own network and protecting their own interests, companies and information.

Though highyl unlikely, if china ever becomes a dominant player on the internet, I could even see us closing ourselves off to protect our internet.

I guess this is the price of success. It attracts political attention.

It's what the media and the extremist left call everyone who isn't extremist left.

More like someone does something for media attention.

Isn't it funny how all of these things happen after the media started using pewdiepie for clicks?

For years, pewdiepie went about his business and nothing happened. Then one day the media decided to exploit pewdiepie for views and all of a sudden, the attention seekers pile on.

She quits social media and writes a public article in traditional media so that people can talk even more about her?

Is this her idea or the idea of her mother who probably is friends with someone working at fastcompany?

I'd be interested to find out how a "random" 8th grader got to write an article for fastcompany and if she or her family has any ties with anyone at fastcompany or even Mehta, the editor.

Also, couldn't this also be viewed as fastcompany exploiting an 8th grader for money and agenda? And is this girl's parents any better than the social media parents?

The internal contradictions and hypocrisy in this article is quite something to behold.

You mean like the british royal family? Politicians? Movie stars? Which the news exploits for money as well?

It's so funny how the media pushes neverending anti-social media stories and yet exploits children themselves for money.

Is it okay when the elites and the news industry does it but not when ordinary people do it?

How many WSJ journalists come from elite college? How many of them are sending their children to elite colleges? I bet most to both categories.

Elite colleges aren't worth it if you want to live an average life. If you want to be a 9-5 corporate desk jockey, then going to an elite college probably doesn't matter.

If you want to excel - a prominent businessman, politician, journalist, scientist, etc, then going to an elite college is most definitely an asset.

I find it strange how the elites are telling the masses elite colleges isn't worth it. I bet they don't tell their own children that. But that's understanable. Why would they want more competition to power for their own children.

Aren't we helping britain, much of europe, australia, etc build orwellian states too? What about our firms, government and military helping build an orwellian state in saudi arabia and israel?

Everyday, all I see are articles about orwellian state in china. They've always had an orwellian state so why the sudden focus? Shouldm't we be more worried about the orwellian state that's slowly being created here at home or amongst our allies?

But the progress of our system has been to go from diverse to less diverse. Ever since 1776, we have become ever more centralized. We went from state rights to federal power. From many political parties to a persistent duopoly controlled by the same people.

Also, the masses have never usurped the few. No time in human history has the masses overthrown anything. The proles are never a threat to the powerful. The few have always been usurped by the other few.

The british in the US weren't overthrow by the masses. They were overthrown by the elite few. The same thing with the romanovs in russia. It was the well funded, highly educated and highly motivated portion of the elites who overthrew the romanovs.

The masses rising up is a romantic myth. It isn't real.

What makes the US so successful has nothing to do with democracy. It has everything to do with colonization, resource acquisition and centralized power. We conquered a continent and much of the world. We dominate the world's trade and currency. We are the greatest empire in human history. That's why we are successful.

The same thing with european democracies. They still manage a large remnant of their former colonies via business and political domination. Even military domination such as libya, mali, middle east, etc. Heck, a bunch of african countries' central banks are directly controlled by the french.

Or maybe they hire the best engineers who interview well? Being a great engineer and being a great interviewer aren't necessarily mutually exclusive. You can be both.

Also, after 20+ years in business, google engineers are still highly respected and sought after by every company for their tech expertise. If google didn't hire the best, that luster would have faded a long time ago.

Google has always been great at tech and poor at customer service. Though that seems to be a industry wide problem, rather than a google specific one.

We've had ghost villages since colonial days ( where native americans chased out of their villages or wiped out ) before being repopulated with european settlers, ghost towns from countless boom and bust cycles ( fur, timber, oil, gold, etc and of course the great depression ) and most recently the rust belt which is still ongoing problem.

Dupe.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19429724

Thank you. My sentiments exactly. Did they interview 12 year olds or actual millenials in the 20s or 30s? This study and article seems so amateurish and intended for clicks and agenda that I can't take either seriously.

Really "likes", "slow wifi", etc? It's almost like they are pushing the same false caricature of millenials or young people that the media constantly pushes.

I'd say the stress of most millenials are the stress of most young adults throughout history. Pressures of family building ( marriage, buying a home, career ), terrible compute to work, retirement, taxes, existentialism, etc. These are the everyday stressors. The "career" that turned into a menial job, the mortgage, getting into an age where your older family members are getting sick and dying, worrying about retirement, etc. Also, being more away of politics and political shenanigans as you becom an adult and the neverending news cycle. Sadly, something that seems to get worse and worse as you age.

I wonder if Holmes was able to charm and dupe this director like she did so many other people. I read that sociopaths could be exceptionally manipulative and conniving.

The only goal of Holmes was to make money. Just like everyone else. The "noble goal" is just BS PR she concocted for herself to more easily influence and trick investors. Like her Steve Jobs' turtleneck and her fake "manly" voice.

Almost everything about her was fake and her only goal was cold hard cash. But I guess it makes for a better story if we turn her into a fallen saint who failed to achieve her "noble goal".

"Scientific authority"? Science isn't a religion, it isn't politics. Why talk of it in that manner?

There shouldn't be an appeal to "scientific authority" but rather to empirical replicable testing and theories.

Also, the basis of science is the humble admission that what we believe to be true today is only true until further testing disproves it. It's the basis of scientific theory that it is true ( not forever ) but only until future tests may show it to be false. And this is why modern science has continually progressed since there isn't an "authority" to prevent new discoveries and thoughts and ideas. It's why the current "lamarckian" epigenetic studies can happen which goes against the "darwinist orthodoxy" of biology the past 150 years.

The problem with science today is the same problem with news, media, religion, schools, etc. Politics. Somehow politics has pushed its way into every facet of our life and politics tends to ruin everything it touches.

"This statement is false."

For all you philosophy majors.

The title is rather disappointing as it implies that nobody at the nytimes understands the difference between computer code and programming language. As an analogy, computer code to programming language is what a book is to a human language. Would you ask if a book is a foreign language? A programming language is what computer code is written in. Just like a human language is what a book is written in.

As for whether a programming language is a foreign language, the answer is an obvious no. Programming languages have mathematical/logical limitations of soundness, completeness, decidability, etc. If programming languages are a foreign languages, then so is algebra or calculus.

Or a career as a cow whisperer.