Are there any hosting companies not named Amazon or Google? I could see how for a small-scale operation it could be beneficial to host a redundant server for backups... but even then, I am not sure how much that is really worth.
6,925 karma · joined October 17, 2010
For example: “what is fever?” Answered by an actual doctor.
Lots of interesting questions, but the topics are all over the place.
When giving directions, we don't say: "please proceed forward for 17.84 ft, while reducing your speed, come to a complete stop, and then gently accelerate while turning 90 degree." We just say: "go to the corner and turn right."
Certain abstractions and improvements to the way we communicate make a lot of sense. Why fight it? Sounds like the author has the perfect mix of skills to improve the core of Ruby to a point where it's useful by the rest of us who don't know and don't have the time.
The whole things reads like an airport novel, adjusted for a specific subject. It's what people who believe about a certain world view expect to see in that world. A tear-jerker for sure, but in practice, for example, I have a lot of anti-vaxxer friends, and even though I don't agree with their choice (but I agree with their choice to have a choice), none of them behave like the people in the story. They are not insane, they just strongly adhere to a certain set of believes.
People would point out to the writer's history, but in fact, their account is only 9 month old, with an average of a few posts per months. It's completely not unreasonable to believe that someone spends this effort to create an illusion of credibility. Heck, I know people with two dozen "active" hacker news accounts, doing the same thing, but in their case so they could promote key tech articles, instead of vaccines.
Internet is a lovely place, isn't it.
Surprisingly true. I've seen quite a few fairly wealthy people use some janky Android phones. Their reasons to use them can be best summarized as personal preferences, but the fact remains.
I've not tried any co-founder dating sites, but this rings hilarious true based on a few conversations I've had in the past. Basically X-airbnb-stripe-froogle-box employees, who were able to raise tens of millions based on an idea, and nothing else, now looking for "co-founders" to whom they are willing to give 1% of equity. Made me lol a little.
Right on. Most people I'd co-found anything with in a heart beat are too busy with 101 things already. The question isn't who I would want to work with, but how to convince them that this venture is worth dropping everything else in the world for.
That would have been a plausible explanation, if not for the abundance of digital currencies. There are now many more times crypto assets than there are actual currencies in the world, and new ones seem to be created every day. There is absolutely nothing "finite" about crypto anymore.
Look at Newmann. He was basically like: "Ooops! YOLO." And nobody is suing him for fraud.
VCs will keep investing in tall white boys with a good story disproportionately more than they would in women, however much more qualified. They will remember the Holmeses and instantly forget the Newmanns. It's just what it is.
Good luck, team Pop!
It is the best because it is true. At least from what I've seen, there countless amazing engineers stuck doing really hard problems for little return, while their rather lousy counterparts razzle-dazzle the world with hand-waving; no brains necessary. If you can find an important problem that won't bore you to tears and solve it, it's definitely more important in the short term.
That said, without brilliant engineers working on hard problems and occasionally inventing really great new things, we wouldn't get far in life. So if you can forgo the fame and the riches, there is a lot of sense in working on hard/interesting problems. Someone's got to.
Personally I think picking a problem that fits your is more important than picking an outcome. The outcome won't make you happy, but the journey around the right problem will. I think.
Everything about Apples messaging makes you believe otherwise. That seems pretty disingenuous.
Then again, 99% of consumers have very little choice that doesn’t include huddles and complicated setup. We all get the same moon goo, under a differ different brands.
Good, bad, or just the fact of life?
It seems like as long as every university in the world can just switch to a blog a do away with publications, they'd save a lot of money, improve science, and reduce complexity overnight.
Why are paid journals still a thing?
I wouldn't immediately assume bad intentions where bad decisions in search for good outcomes were made. To know which one it was, one has to first know the people really well, and know them both when the times were good and the times were bad.
Someone once told me: "Never assume, you make an ass of you and me (ass|u|me)."
Supply and demand is a wonderfully simple system that regulates itself, and as much as it sounds appealing, us messing with it will only make things worse.
Today you can get an $x/hour at Amazon or Target, but if Amazon does it right and keeps driving costs down and prices up, coupled with continuous explosion in online shopping, in 10 years Target loses its edge and you can only get a job at Amazon.
It's not to say that short term gains aren't worth it for employees, but long term, those gains might already be baked into Amazon's logic.
Today, they employ 1M people, but in 10 years, when there's no longer a Target or a Wallmart, they overnight add 10M robots and there's no one to say no at that point.
They are notorious for playing very long games, and they don't seem to do anything that doesn't eventually benefit them.
Being in tech I find the tactics very interesting, but it's getting progressively harder to tell if the world is becoming net positive as a result.
On one hand, at YT scale it is nearly impossible to figure out what is right or wrong, and I really wouldn't want them to do it. It just doesn't work, and their blocking content around Covid and elections only highlights how much it doesn't work. "fact checkers" are humans with underlying biases ...etc.
On the other hand, if you were to give me 10 bottles of Tylenol, and paid me to promote it and sell it to others, but you laced it with cyanid instead, it's clear that you should be help responsible.
This is where it gets interesting because the question becomes is YT paying to promote fake products, or are they the ones being paid? You can see an argument that YT is simply a distributor that cannot verify the content, and therefore the only person in trouble should be the one who created this fake content, and told everyone it was real.
Thinking out loud mostly...
The narrative that rural counties depend on the centers for their infrastructure needs is a view that was created by the cities. In practice, people is small towns and rural counties are extremely self-sufficient. They know help isn't coming their way, and therefore are totally okay doing what needs to be done to preserve their communities' health. People grow their veggies, raise their own pigs, hold three jobs to pay the bills ...etc.
People in small towns really couldn't give 2 f()cks about people from the city, but they get pissed off because city people come and try to tell them what to do. Basically, they've not asked for any help from cities before, so why should they be handed down constrains now?
At least that's what I've seen.