The AP's feed isn't free (please remember to pay journalists). News orgs like the NYT, NPR and others pay the AP a decent amount of money to manually go out and collect the results.
The AP has writeups of their process too:
7,861 karma · joined December 28, 2008
http://blog.knowtheory.net @knowtheory
Running the ATProto Community Fund. Previously I ran DocumentCloud. I like data big and small.
The AP has writeups of their process too:
Talking with the park rangers, i found out that the state of the park is _after_ a half million dollar project to thin the underbrush and dead wood in order to protect the park in the event of a fire.
Twitter doesn't host video of substantial duration or audio, and comment threads everywhere are already the same mess (just at a different scale w/r/t twitter).
The conversation about whether twitter will be successful at streaming live content is interesting, but probably just one of those things that demonstrates whether or not they have _further_ growth potential into other spaces.
Twitter is already where lots of people go to talk about sporting events, news as it's happening, shared experiences like TV watching, and so on.
To the extent to which Disney can get access to users in the throes of emotion or facilitate deeper investment in their properties is probably useful for Disney on its face, even before anything more is built on top of or into twitter.
Vending machines are all about placement & location, and the ability of a vendor to find high traffic locations to put machines.
Machines get placed based on info about locations whether it's demographics, or a kind of business or whatever.
Individual transactions may not have identity tied to them, but it's not like the business is devoid of information about users, or hypotheses about them.
And on the internet... how do you get that info from your users aside from usage analytics (even if it's gross analytics)?
http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/hospital-er-call-help-1.368630...
This is literally comparing apples and gasoline.
I guess i'm super conservative about sourcing when reading arguments made about historical topics (and academic papers at least tend to make it clear whether or not their sourcing is primary, secondary, or what).
Especially when it comes to claims of what the common perception was at any particular point in human history i am always curious to see not what someone's narrative is, but what they're building their case upon.
(also as an aside the use of The Last Samurai as a lens or touchstone for discussing bushido was a bit weird to me given how prevalent the notion of bushido is. But maybe i'm just sad that that's the go-to reference.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vcc0jNJwgJA
If you're interested in the subject, that might be a good place to start: https://open.library.ubc.ca/cIRcle/collections/ubctheses/24/...
Okay then, how about these:
https://hypatia.ca/2016/06/07/he-said-they-said/
https://medium.com/@nickf4rr/hi-im-nick-farr-nickf4rr-35c32f...
https://twitter.com/quinnnorton/status/739937558533021697
And just to make sure this tweet isn't missed... https://twitter.com/quinnnorton/status/739939420183400449
Quinn Norton:
> I do hope Jake has enough sense that trying to accuse me of being part of a vast gov conspiracy to take him down would catch in his throat.
So, I honestly wouldn't change anything about the interface, except to wrap the entire thing in an outer shell with something that represents what GTD software might call a context.
And depending on context, different rule sets apply. Anyway, that's just a suggestion, don't mean to stomp on your notion of product, what you've got is a great start and a neat coupling of product experience and interesting engineering!
I especially like the ambient info display in the app icon. Seeing whether the app is bordered in green or blue every time i tab up the app switcher is a great piece of design.
Tried it out, bought a copy :)
The thing i'm noticing most (and i can hack around this probably) is that there are some things that are productive in certain contexts (monitoring twitter after launching/announcing a thing) and not in others not (twtittering while i'm supposed to be writing code, or letting myself get distracted by twitter while waiting for something to build).
Would you consider some notion of rule sets scoped to some notion of "what i'm supposed to be doing"?
I'll be curious to see if I can build gentle nudges back on task if i'm off in the woods, or how i can better categorize different types of app usage. Coupling to my todo lists might be helpful.
Additionally, Thiel is altering the normal course of how these cases would have gone and specifically notes that here: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/26/business/dealbook/peter-th...
It's one thing to say that funding a lawsuit is fine, and another thing to say that its fine to target an organization to ensure that every grievance against them does not settle out of court and goes to trial.
The budget sequestration deal in 2011 resulted in 10% across the board cuts in 2013: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_budget_sequestra...
Likewise, if you look at how Congressional Republicans responded to the Obama Administration's request for funding for Zika research you'll see the same thing. The answer was both "no" and "why don't you divert research funds from Ebola to Zika research if you want it so badly" (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2016/05/16/congr... )
Budgets have been cut. Not in ways anyone would ever want, but to say that they're not have an impact is not correct.
But each time i re-read this post, the cohesive point that pops out most is that this post is basically a Donald Trump speech about Typescript.
The claim is that it's bigger, it's better, and everyone else is a bit sad. It disingenuously claims that it's not about about competition and then literally ends with "Typescript Won".
So, lemme offer some rhetorical advice:
1) pick to a POV & stick to it. It's a competition or it's not. You either think it's worth highlighting how much better Typescript is over other technologies, or you don't.
2) Most of the points made in the post aren't assertions about the benefits of Typescript or the decisions it makes. Not everyone agrees that the existence of a static type checker is an unqualified benefit (and there are many dimensions to that conversation). If you want to make the assertion that Typescript makes your life easier/better because it has a type checker, assert the benefits of having a type checker (and the decision making for AngularJS's adoption of Typescript on the basis of having a type checker could use a citation).
3) Related to 1., this post comes off as MEGA passive-aggressive because you keep on mentioning how much you also love other technologies at the same time talking about how they are inferior to Typescript on a variety of shifting bases. Because of that you're not telling a cohesive story about Typescript. You're just talking about how you think other technologies are bad.
The problem with technology non-profits is that the world around them changes pretty rapidly, and with substantial discontinuities.
So if you're an employee and you've signed on to an org with an understanding of why your job and your project matters for The Mission, of course change can appear scary and confusing.
On the other hand, especially when there is rapid turn over, or the ground keeps shifting under the org, there's a strong incentive by execs to try and find new territory one can set up upon.
The tensions seem pretty obvious. This is the same issue that's come up with Wikipedia's search project too.
Everybody brings themselves and their assumptions to a conversation. All conversations are a negotiation over a shared space (however temporarily we may share that space).
I'm not calling into question whether you believe harassment is a bad thing or not (because frankly that's a pointless question to ask. Anybody who's asked point blank if they support harassment is going to say no).
The rhetorical structure of the conversation is what i am concerned about and steering the conversation around.
It is problematic from a rhetorical standpoint to debate whether or not the original author is being harassed by a single person or multiple people, because it distracts from the authors point, we can make no headway without further facts (which we are not privy to), and whether or not she's being harassed by a single person or multiple people is not pertinent to either the problems at hand or possible remedies.
So, then from a conversational point, one has to ask themselves what is the rhetorical purpose of asking the question? Is it intentionally to distract from the author's point? Is it to float & further the OP's theory? Is it morbid curiosity? Is it just carelessness or ignorance (and i mean that in the descriptive and non-pejorative fashion)?
Which of those are appropriate justifications for further pursuing the line of inquiry? I'd say none of them are, which is why i've been pretty vehement in knocking the foundation out from under them.
The door is always open for someone to supply a justification for why it matters and should be discussed, but skepticism isn't a good justification just the same way that pascal's wager isn't a good justification for believing in a Christian God.
Have a good one.
Would it matter to the author whether it was one person or many in her specific case? Would it make the harassment any less troubling or alarming?
Would it matter to the general case, since the author's story of harassment is certainly not a unique one in our industry?
So what point would the answer to your question prove one way or the other? Not much. Which is also why OP's post is horseshit both from a rhetorical perspective and from a human perspective.
OP's theory is a minimization tactic. Oh, well the harassment is probably only one person. Oh, the harassment is probably by a troll or troublemaker who's trying to cause a gender war.
The author's case is not unique. In trying to minimize the source of harassment you are attempting to undermine the author's point.
She is being harassed for participating in our industry, and that is really fucked up. There are people in our industry who either believe this behavior to be acceptable, or they think they can get away with it.
So, once again, how about we dispense with the crack-pottery, either do something helpful or maybe just lay off the "add comment" button.
> Please, please, PLEASE show me some evidence that I am wrong.
I already did. Your theory doesn't make any sense because of how insanely labor intensive it is. Revenge porn sites, 4Chan, GamerGate, the Fappening, all of it is too involved and complex for even a determined group of false flag rabble rousers to execute on.
And again, on top of all of that, they would be harassing people, which would make them not people who believe in fighting harassment by definition.
So here's the crux of the matter. Even if your theory was true, all you're doing is distracting from the point, not addressing harassment or any of the possible ways harassment could be prevented.
p.s. given that you haven't actually engaged any of the points i've made i don't plan on writing you any more replies. I hope that you endeavor to do as Abraham Lincoln once said and "Be excellent to each other"
Kathy Sierra explicitly called out one of her harassers weev and his posse (def not what you'd call a "Social Justice Warrior", and weev initially copped to harassing her and has been trying to deny it subsequently).
Places like 4Chan and KotakuInAction are not some fucked up false flag operation simply by virtue of the vast number of man hours involved.
And even ignoring all of the evidence that contradicts your theory, i'd like to point out how incredibly unsympathetic and unhelpful your theory is.
Even if there were some psychotic cadre of rabble rousers out there harassing others, IT WOULD STILL NOT BE OKAY IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM. And there would still be the very practical problem that people were being harassed.
There are people out there who are trying to address harassment on the internet with technological and social means, and despite the size of the challenge, this is something that needs to be addressed.