invig

I don't think that's the best interpretation of complement. Think of complement as "is your users experience benefited by the existence of the other thing". I think that Search qualifies as something that enhances the Facebook users experience (e.g. my cousin mentioned thing that they like doing today, how do I find more about thing?)

G+'s implementation kind of broke communities though?

Each individual having their own personal view of their circles meant that you couldn't reliably know which of your friends had seen the stuff your reading.

That makes it really hard to talk about (Hey did you see X?, no what's X? Oh... oops?).

I like the theory of being able to organise my relationships into nice little buckets, but that's absolutely not how social things work.

I think it's kind of worse than that. It's not an education problem. People are intentionally using this stuff to talk publicly about an issue. They just don't like the consequences of that.

You can't really make that either though. Facebook itself can see everything. As soon as you federate that all the admins can see everything and nothing is private.

You could try and encrypt it down to the user level but a person added to a group would only see the content added from that point forward (the ability to decrypt would be defined at the time of the post, and new people could never read it).

The only way around that would be centralised key management which defeats the whole point.

This is one of those problems where it's probably better to just use Facebook.

I don't understand how a license is supposed to prevent people from doing bad things with your content. Does the not-so-nice guy in Russia care that he's infringing on your license?

I think Mastodon makes the correct call (everything here is public, because it's impossible for it not to be and still have the service be what it is), and the community wants a square circle. Yay activists.

Is there a standard or something for how this kind of meta data could be kept on articles / papers?

Two wrongs make a right?

"Most of us are here to get work done and earn a living"

Miss-aligned goals do create all kinds of problems, don't they?

I'd go a step further and say don't work for people who are clearly liars.

I think you've missed the point. These people are pretty close to thieves. There isn't an amount of communication strategy that would have changed the unspoken willingness to take the client's money knowing they were lying to get it.

What's with the default to "if it's not explicitly legal, it must be illegal"?

Imagine if every new piece of software your wrote had to be tested for legality because you don't know that it's explicitly legal. Oh there aren't laws for this new thing, so I guess you should challenge yourself all the way to the supreme court?

I get the author not liking Copilot, but I don't see that GitHub/Microsoft have any kind of obligation to figure this out just because they're GitHub/Microsoft.

If I as an individual had this obligation placed upon me I'd just never write any more code.

Ultimately I think, like open source, Copilot and the tools that will follow advance human progress in novel ways. Software getting easier to make is a good thing. If you don't like this particular implementation of something helpful, feel free to start an open source alternative without challenging yourself in the supreme court.

Captive? At what point does personal accountability matter? Everyone's choosing to be there and look at this stuff.

It is still their fault. Personal accountability is the only thing that can improve a situation. At all levels.

Yes, but the takeaway isn't that they should start making bold moves, it's that we actually want them to churn out and be surpassed over time. It's the entrenching of them through regulatory capture or predatory behaviour that's bad.

The law of large numbers. Nothing other than the core ad products makes a difference to Google. The next biggest "successes" are just things that build a moat around the core ad product.

What's embarrassing is that they keep trying other random things.

Give the money back to the shareholders and let them invest in new founders. Small team success is great for the world but impossible to care about at a Google scale.

This framing is unhelpful.

You haven't been wronged by “corporate America”. That's not even a thing that could have wronged you.

You've worked for or with people behaving badly. Did you call them out on it? If nobody calls them out on bad behaviour how will things get better?

Some people are being so bad that you just have to leave to avoid harm. Fair enough.

It's hard to imagine that this silent retribution does anything but make the problem worse.

The “if we just go back to the old app” theory ignores half the problem. People learn how to be good at instagram and how to use it to their advantage over time.

To pretend that Facebook is the only party extracting value is wrong. People (who aren’t you) cause a lot of the problems that drive these apps to the places they end up.

Turns out that most people would prefer to see the Kardashians over their friends most of the time. Sad, but there it is.

Why do you signal out “targeted” advertising? Would it be a different story if they advertising was not targeted? I think it would probably be an even worse junk land.

Which pool did candidates end up being hired from?

My (albeit limited) experience with companies like this is that their interview process is far more hurtful than helpful. The processes are so long and so narrow that I can't see how it wouldn't be more effective to just say "come work on this thing for a day with me" and we'll see how it goes?

They must be leaking so many great makers arbitrarily. I assume that this helps the kind of work they do in some mysterious way?

I suppose you learned to code without reading any code?

I’m sure there’s no chance of corruption becoming an issue within a single all powerful entity.

They’re not selling you code. They’re selling you an engine that helps you find the right free code at the right time.

If you read free code yourself it’s fine, but if a machine does it for you it’s not? We overvalue humans.

He said: "My offer was based on Twitter’s SEC filings being accurate." Which is a valid statement, SEC filings are _required_ to be accurate.

And you've interpreted: "Producing that evidence is not a contingency in the deal". Which doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

He never said he didn't want to buy it under the negotiated terms, he said he wants to be able to _verify_ that what the company says is accurate.

By history of market manipulation do you mean that his saying things moves markets or that he's actually engaging in criminal activity?

Are you using this Tweet as your source? Because that's not what he said.

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1526465624326782976

That's not what that Tweet says.

1. Given Jack's level of support for Elon, does anyone think he doesn't already know _exactly_ where the skeletons are buried?

2. It seems entirely unreasonable to assume that Elon doesn't want to own Twitter, or that he tried to buy it on a lark and changed his mind. If your premise is that Elon did want to own Twitter a few weeks ago and doesn't want to own Twitter now you should rethink your opinion.

Occom's Razor says he's just saying what he thinks when asked questions, which given his behavior on Twitter is entirely normal.

It's been speculated. What if there's nothing to read between the lines here and he's just saying what he thinks?