modwest

Well said. You’re also describing a fundamental tension between capitalism and socialism.

I'm there exactly with you. I could've written this comment myself. Love hooks so much. Excellent abstraction.

edit: i guess i'm just supposed to upvote and move on but i'm enthusiastic about this topic :)

Mods is it ok that this user ONLY posts links from paywalled sloanreview.mit.edu links? Seems like spam to me. They never comment, they only post every article from that website.

First, thanks for offering, I appreciate that!

But no, I think for the most part it was pretty benign. It looks like they were planning on doing some kind of maybe SEO gaming or something using my de.licio.us clone I made almost a decade ago. I had about 23,000 accounts with .ru and .lv email addresses, many repeats, almost none of which interacted with the app at all.

Many recently created, even today. I think there must be a script that loads in users or something like that.

Oh gosh I have a project I should check on. If I can find the credentials...

edit: oh no.

> Of course we don't want social media enabling that.

Eliding that it not only "enables" it in a binary way, but also "enables" it in a that creates exponential reach and growth of the market. This explosive mechanic is one of the things implies by the phrase, "tech boom." Your response reduces social media's role to a one-sentence hand-wave.

> The solution isn't to take down the posts, but to alert law enforcement.

Is your point that you can't do the latter if you do the former? Because that's not the case in any way.

> These governments should be urged to find and arrest the people who are doing this, otherwise it won't stop even if blocked.

You're _technically_ right in the very narrow sense that there will likely still be some kind of market for chattel slavery even without Instagram. But again you are minimizing Instagram's (I'm using Instagram as a stand-in for all the companies involved) role and responsibilities in this situation for some reason.

When we talk about these companies we use phrasing like, "huge tech platforms," "tech giants," etc. To my mind you are defending these "tech behemoths" from the very idea of public accountability.

The response to the question you raise of government & law enforcement enforcing the law is so obvious it barely merits response, but: yes, obviously the government should govern and law enforcement should enforce the law. Bringing it up at all seems to me like another deflection away from "Instagram"'s responsibilities in governance on & public accountability for their platforms.

I don't know the answer and won't bore you by trying to make one up on the fly. I'll just say this is a novel challenge to human society and requires a novel approach to corporate governance & accountability. What we're doing now isn't working and the stakes are as high as they can be.

We have the responsibility to insist on better from our institutions.

Can you just make your point please

What blows my mind about what you're describing is how ill-equipped society was for Facebook, and how laughable it is that Mark Zuckerberg is in charge of reconciling Facebook and society, for the very reasons you're talking about.

When I think about the global scale and social/political/economic scope required to responsibly run Facebook, and compare that to the skill set of Mark Zuckerberg it's just, like, insane that he's in charge of it. I'm sure Mark Zuckerberg is truly brilliant and capable of becoming a great international leader. No doubt. I just don't think it should be, like, his first job. Lol. It's truly absurd.

Unbelievable horrors so many of our fellow humans are trapped in.

These claims are not credible. Publish your analysis techniques & results.

Well this is, as far as I can tell, an intractable problem with automotive because of the nature of the whole market, from OEMs to dealerships & dealership groups to consumers.

Dealerships live and breathe leads. People renting cars definitely do not want to be sales leads for dealerships. So I think this may be a pothole along your way to the success I hope you achieve. :)

I see. How do you plan on turning Carve customers into leads for the dealership, to drive traditional car sales?

(disclaimer: I work in automotive, and very closely with dealers)

Doesn't this burden the dealership's service revenue? They have to pay to maintain this fleet of rentals, which is going to be resource pressure for their service departments.

Does your company, or do any in the field, support policies for retraining/job placement for employees displaced by their technology?

Nice self-fulfilling prophecy there.

I bet if there's not a yeast or other fungus for making that conversion now, there will be sooner or later

Yeah, I understand all that going in to the article. I have, let's call it, an advanced beginner's understanding of neuroscience & evolutionary biology.

It was just an extremely long article, in my personal opinion, for "this is different."

Yeah, exactly the info I was looking for. "They're different" is like half the story. How do they work?

This article is deeply unsatisfying. Too much fluff for a very basic point: ctenophores are different kinds of organisms than we’ve come to expect. That’s it. “Different” appears 24 times in the article, almost every single instance of which is just, “ctenophores are different.”

There’s not much more information in this article than that. I was hoping for some compelling science writing. But this feels like a tiny story (for now) stretched way too far. In a year or five when there are some interesting hypotheses about WHY they’re different, then we’ll see.

This presentation had an outsize influence on my professional development as a programmer. If I've watched it once (and I have), I've watched it a dozen times.

edit: The "Limits" slide (go to 12:30 in the vid) is one that I really internalized early on. And looking at it again years later, the principles from that slide absolutely guide my app development:

- We can only hope to make reliable those things we can understand

- We can only consider a few things at a time

- Intertwined things must be considered together

- Complexity undermines understanding

It can include decoupling, but no it's not synonymous.

I think geogra4's tone was of a kind with the post to which he was responding, which seemed to be asserting that only "modern democracies" (which there appear to be a scant few of these days) could "play ball," and that therefore China is, I guess, disqualified from participating in the world economy?

This is deeply subjective obviously: It didn't strike me as "whataboutism," but more a refutation of what seemed like a moral-political superiority complex. Devopyl's comment expressed this old-fashioned view; very reminiscent of the 80s and 90s, for me, and I think geogra4's balloon-popping was well in order.

We may have different definitions of "whataboutism" as well :)

Agreed, and to move up one level of meta, the interviewer should be thinking about this kind of analysis when they construct their interview process/system.

“How can I moderate this conversation so the questions themselves are not obstructing the candidate’s answers?”

We'd probably get along well then.

But can everyone else?

Unsubstantiated opinion: “gathering data” is a bad mindset to be in during an interview. That may contribute to the adoption of pathological questions like, “Why don’t people like you?"

That’s a bummer. Why is that, do you think?

"I've got a real passion for frozen yogurt."

> There's a secondary problem too: They are questions that have right and wrong answers, and they break down quickly if the candidate realizes that the truth is a liability.

Excellent point; thought-provoking and well-put. Agreed completely.

The article does have a few good questions, and the best, IMO, is #36:

> 36. How would you build a product for people who are looking for an apartment?

That is such a good question because it's incredibly open-ended. There is no wrong answer. It doesn't even necessarily require a computer-based solution.

If the interviewer moderates the interview well, a single open-ended question with a broad scope can lead to wide-ranging conversations that shed light on more than just technical prowess.

Open-ended questions also present the interviewer the opportunity to ask spontaneous questions, digging into the thought processes behind a candidate's choices. That digging can and should yield lots of valuable, relevant information about the candidate. Assuming, of course, the interviewer has the skills necessary to extract that value from the interview.

Ask "Why?" enough in these situations, and you eventually get something close to the truth[1].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Whys