Exactly. This proposal is absolutely soul-crushing for most people. Having extended daylight hours when people are actually awake in the evening is critical for positive mental health.
167 karma · joined June 5, 2012
For meetings, the process typically was: 1. Try to book a meeting room for a group large enough, succeed about 80% of the time and scramble at the last minute other times. 2. Wait for someone to finish up their call. If someone super senior was in the room, my meeting was guaranteed to start whenever they felt like ending their meeting, which would be 5-10 minutes late. 3. Inevitably dial into a video conference because at least one member of the team is working in a different office, so not even everyone was in person anyway 4. Run out of time at the end and having to dash to my next meeting room late.
And this doesn't even account for the fact that getting quality heads-down time in an open office floor plan was nearly impossible.
Just take the good with the bad. Make in-person meetings mandatory for important events that require in-person collaboration like design sprints, brainstorming, launches, etc.
It's an important reminder we do not exist in a vacuum and our actions have an indirect impact on a large number of people.
Unions to protect workers are now more important than ever in this new age of monopolies.
http://freakonomics.com/2014/02/26/why-are-japanese-homes-di...
That said, their vision for the world to go 100% wireless is absolutely right. However, I don't think their execution is great in this area. Their AirPods don't hold a long enough charge quite yet and they are highly susceptible to being lost. Also, while I think Bluetooth has many many problems, I wish Apple spent time improving that standard instead of introducing their own standard.
What if people could only rent out their primary residence for no more than half the year unless the property is exempt as a vacation home? Perhaps this could be a good compromise for cities to encourage Airbnb while effectively banning the practice of buying homes exclusively for Airbnbers.
How is this a bad thing? Isn't gathering more data better than not having this data?
It looks like they last raised money at a $62.5 billion valuation [1], which suggests that investors are expecting the company to operate at a global level. Unfortunately, Uber is facing extremely stiff competition in China [2] and India [3]. There's also the well-publicized tension between Uber and various European companies. And that's not even taking into account increased regulation in US cities like San Francisco [4].
So, while Uber is clearly a successful company - how successful will it be? $62.5 billion dollars successful? My guess would be no, which would drive a correction for the company.
[1] http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-12-03/uber-raise... [2] http://fortune.com/2015/07/08/uber-didi-kuaidi-china-funding... [3] http://qz.com/645258/uber-sues-ola-for-allegedly-using-the-s... [4] http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/SF-to-require-Lyft-Ube...
I wouldn't be surprised if most of the difference cited by this study was due to walking. I know that I've had to exert extra effort living in SF to be more active than I had to when I lived in NYC.
I wonder if there will be a follow-up study looking into the actual reasons why life expectancy is higher in NYC.
Does anyone here hire graduates from these schools? If so, what has been your experience? If not, why not?
Surgeons are increasingly portrayed by the media as greedy and worthy of increased oversight. The reality of the situation is that surgeons are just like you and me - in fact probably better than you in me in a lot of ways.
The vast majority assume a crushing amount of debt and go through 10+ years of schooling for an intensely demanding job that places them in life-or-death situations on a daily basis. And that's before dealing with the lawsuits, shrinking income due to insurance cheaping out on procedures, and the general distrust from the public.
The bottom line is that situations like these are rare. And instituting a system geared towards knee-jerk reactions is going to dramatically affect the ability of good doctors who make genuine mistakes. It's going to scare away intelligent people from the field who want to do good, but would be legitimately afraid of losing their livelihood in a lawsuit or protracted legal process. And it's going to affect the public, who will be likely left with a lower-quality medical system.
For instance, the Chicago-New York route is roughly 800 miles, which is about an hour of hyperloop time. If the tickets were still priced in the $20 range each way, just think of how many more people would travel between the two cities.
People could live in Chicago while commuting to work in NYC. Others could live in NYC and impulsively decide to travel to Chicago for a fun night out on the town. Surely, the route would increase in popularity - perhaps vastly so.
What I love about the hyperloop is that it's like a physical embodiment of the internet - shrinking the geographical distance that separates us.
So, yeah, I can see how Flattr, a service that revolves completely around a community of people who actually appreciate others for their work, is upset at the company whose notion of "thanks" is a Cease and Desist.
As developers, we should be alarmed - we shouldn't be blaming people for 'not reading the terms of service' or saying that 'Twitter has the right to do what it wants'. These answers might be technically right, but they don't capture the true feeling of what is right, which is that developers should build apps that enhance Twitter's ecosystem.
So, that's it for Twitter for me. I only expect Twitter to get worse about their developer policies in the future, and I don't want to be a part of a community that treats developers poorly.
"By reading this, you have denied its [some type of government surveillance] existence and implied consent."
Very troubling news.
Here's the bottom line - if such a tame joke can have this large an effect and warrant this type of a knee-jerk reaction from the tech community, our conception of gender equality is seriously fragile.
Better discussions about sexism in the workplace could revolve around the lack of female leadership, sexist working environments, an overabundance of male developers, company roles that appear to be gender-specific, etc.
We are so wrong on the major issues that we want to make the full situation as easy to digest as a dongle joke and a tweet.
It's far more complex than that. And this is the only thing I'm going to say about the situation because we all look like children for addressing this.
We in tech need to be good to each other because other corporate interests and patent trolls won't be. We should always give each other the benefit of the doubt and try to resolve issues without menacing legal language and the threat of lawyers. We need to show we can thrive without this garbage. Otherwise, it will only embolden our enemies and cause this type of confrontation to happen more frequently in the future - to everyone's detriment.
Lean and Agile act as a "hill-climbing" algorithm. You start at point x and take an action in some direction. If you improve, continue. If you don't, change directions. Keep doing this until you can't improve any further and you've hit a local maxima.
The important concept here is that you hit a LOCAL maxima. There could be other vastly superior outcomes, but whether or not you reach these outcomes depends on your starting point.
I think Lean and Agile are fantastic for making improvements to a product. However, in order to change the game, you need to take risks by jumping to a new starting point and beginning again.
I think Google, as the article points out, espouses both philosophies. They take massive lateral jumps (Driverless Cars, Project Glass, etc.), but once they make that jump, their development is Lean and Agile.
So I ask, when you have access to Graph Search, what is the first thing you'll do with it?