giblfiz

Relevant regarding standards: http://xkcd.com/927/

wait... your saying that because they are discontinuing a product?

I'm not suggesting that google is/isn't evil these days, but I would suggest that there is absolutely no moral aspect to discontinuing a feed reader.

"Google's executive jets – of which is has at least eight – carry very few people in great luxury, with the larger aircraft in the Chocolate Factory's fleet coming equipped with double beds"

Chocolate Factory? What the hell is going on with this article?

This post makes me think of many of the concepts from "zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance".

For those who haven't read it, it focuses heavily on the nature of quality (how it is both somewhat universal, and somewhat a matter of taste) and the spiritual nature that quality can contain.

to mapgrep, the first poster, I would suggest that not all things concerning or focusing on physical objects are materialism. One could even argue that dcurt is attempting to _avoid_ having to think about material objects once he has bought them, that this is what he means by "trusting" the things he owns.

Am I the only one horribly confused by the math in these charts?

E.G. the second chart has FF at 20.08% and then has a breakout where they show FF15 at ~11%, FF14 at ~3.2%, FF13 at ~0.7%, and FF12 at ~1% Those add up to ~16% by my math... That leaves around 4% missing, I'm assuming in an "other" category, but I feel like leaving off "other" when it's your second largest grouping is bad presentation.

Anyone else have a less confused way of reading these graphs?

It's pretty well known that Einstein was a horrible husband and father http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mileva_Mari http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elsa_Einstein http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eduard_Einstein

Yep, still growing. In fact they have a pretty cool "free trial" program running right now, where you can assign the funds of a single large lender. (It's a little bit like matching, but you don't even need to put up anything to be matched)

Check it out: http://www.kiva.org/invitedby/giblfiz

Alexanderh, that's a really interesting criticism. I understand where your coming from with the concern that the photogenic will absorb more funding than they should (a morally questionable advantage). To a lesser extent I also see why the concept of having people choose, as if sitting in judgment, makes you uncomfortable.

I suspect however that you are thinking of the donation pool as a fixed one, rather than a flexible one. It seems likely that having a face, a name and a story will cause people to engage and ultimately donate more. Donor fatigue ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donor_fatigue ) is a very real thing, and specific interactions with specific recipients that have visible outcomes to the donor on a human scale do a lot to avoid it.

So the question really becomes: Is it ok to let the photogenic people be more likely to get treatment if it means more people get treatment overall? Is it ok to let folks sit in judgment if it means they will save more people as a result.

I think we all have to come to our own conclusions. I for one am blown away by what this site is doing. I'm willing to let the photogenic do better than normal if it means more personal engagement. I also think that we all make choices about who we help live and who we leave to suffer every day. Relegating those choices to chance doesn't seem to me to be any more moral than selecting on other criteria. In fact it's something you are already forced to do because their are several different charities out their to choose between.

Don't discount it. Your numbers are about right, but that can definitely be enough to run an organization. Kiva has about 80 full time staff and about 3/4s of their funding comes from lender tips.

I'm assuming this is a reference to this: http://eyetap.blogspot.ca/2012/07/physical-assault-by-mcdona...

do you literally want me to kill you now?

Definition of LITERALLY

1: in a literal sense or manner : actually <took the remark literally> <was literally insane>

2: in effect : virtually <will literally turn the world upside down to combat cruelty or injustice — Norman Cousins>

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/literally

Well two differences... one only applies to some of those things. In the case of all of the physically active ones they to some extent self-regulate. There is really only so much power-lifting you can do in a week, and very few ways around that max (even assuming steroid use)

But I think the more relevant issue is far fewer people seem to be prone to obsession in any of those other spheres. It's not that hardcore gaming is any worse than an obsession with chess, it's that far fewer are obsessed with chess.

I found this article (which came off of hacker news in the first place) to be super relevant. http://www.paulgraham.com/addiction.html

Wow, Dave Carvajal, That was a name I was hoping I would never see again. I actually worked with him for a while at the ladders, and after every conversation with him I felt like I needed to take a bath to get the slime off.