morley

> usually filled internally or from private networks.

I'm guessing you know this already, but there are also search firms that specialize in hiring executives.

Twitter thoughts are more than unfiltered: the emotions have to be dialed up to the max for the tweet to stand out and get positive feedback. Small things get amplified AND they get interpreted as unfiltered thoughts.

I did read that. Giving a choice is better than not giving a choice, but I think my point still stands: a judge with malevolent creativity can do harm, whether they offer a choice or not. Consider a case where someone purposefully gives a bad alternative, or one that sounds worse to defendants, and later points out "I gave them a choice, they still took the years willingly."

This story brings to mind a judge profiled in the third season of Serial, who liked to give unorthodox punishments that ended up shaming the defendants, were difficult to follow, and ended up trapping them in a cycle of parole and further punishments.

I try not to be cynical, but my perception is that for every one of these judges who can think up positive punishments, there's at least one who's creativity ends up in a more sinister place. And regardless of a judge's talent in this regard, they have the position and the incentives to make their outcomes seem better than they are.

I'm not in school and aren't actively trying to learn one particular thing. But I've always wanted a flashcard phone app where I can browse topics, install the flashcards, and learn at my leisure. Is there a good product like that? All the apps I've seen seem to trend towards making your own cards.

Some of the organizational changes are substantial. Having an independent privacy force review all existing and new product features for privacy implications can be a huge drain on velocity, especially if they demand a lot of changes.

But really, this is how organizations should be run: there should be a user-privacy-focused resource inside the company that can work with product to guide how features get implemented. (The same goes for accessibility, technical feasibility, and other things that product people aren't necessarily measured against.)

According to this analysis of Q4 2018, AWS has twice the market share (32.3%) of MS's (16.5):

https://www.canalys.com/newsroom/cloud-market-share-q4-2018-...

I would call that "distant."

Also: I've noticed anecdotally that a lot of people, myself included, make decisions to reduce their misses, where it's usually better to maximize your hits.

For those interested in hearing more about Stanley Kubrick's late life, a writer who collaborated with him on a draft of Artificial Intelligence wrote about his experience:

https://www.ianwatson.info/plumbing-stanley-kubrick/

I was someone who worshipped Kubrick when I was in high school. Reading about the reality of working with him was eye-opening, though I still think he was a master of the artform right to the end.

How feasible (I guess in terms of costs) is it to build a real home-made airplane? I guess the obvious place to start is to reproduce the Kitty Hawk plane with modern (ostensibly lighter and cheaper) materials?

Not sure why you're getting downvoted here. In Brooklyn and Queens, this happens a ton. If a loud motorcycle happens to rev when you're on the street, it's viscerally terrifying.

I was told that if you find a tick on you, you should keep the bug in case you need to have it tested for Lyme.

Forgive my ignorance, but what's stopping you from buying a third-party screen and attaching that? Right now, I'm using a MBP with a Dell monitor. It would seem insane if the Mac Pro had a priority monitor interface.

  according to a study to be released on Monday by the News 
  Media Alliance.

  ...which represents more than 2,000 newspapers across the
  country, including The New York Times.

Clearly tech companies have won in the past couple decades where content producers have lost, but the claims levied article are disingenuous to the point that this should really be in the Op-Ed section.

There are some forms of internet "weapons" that I think reach the same scale as the ones in Cixin's series:

  - Social media harassment
  - Review bombs 
  - Doxxing
  - Swatting
 

Luckily, the internet is not at a point where any individual who reveals their contact information is subject to these problems.

The most common refrain I've heard is to reduce meat consumption, and to shift from high-carbon-output meats to lower-output ones. I think the rough order, from highest to lowest, is:

  - Beef 
  - Pork
  - Seafood
  - Chicken
  - Non-meat diet

I think you're pointing out a different shade of the same problem. People _do_ technically have representation in the form of their Congresspeople and Senators. But those elected officials have to polarize their viewpoints and thus their votes because when they vote out of party, the vocal members of their parties excoriate them as traitors. So the people in the middle feel like their representatives aren't representing them.

The article mentions a 12-minute landing video, but naive Googling doesn't turn anything up except a bunch of much shorter videos (less than 3 minutes). Does anyone have a link to the full thing?

I wonder if the Werther effect also applies to murder-suicides and spree killings. (My non-scientific intuition is that those behaviors are in the same direction.)

Personally I think the world would be better off if the media stopped reporting on spree killings, but I think any application of that policy would meet public backlash under the guise of "the public has a right to know."

I'm a little confused by the thesis of the article, and how it relates to the title.

Unless I'm reading it wrong, this is the thrust of the facts:

* The Android design team describes their design process. * In their description, they cite a paper that suggests giving people at least 3 positive experiences for every negative experience they have. * That paper was debunked.

How does that translate to "much of the 'science' used in design is bullshit"? That bogus paper they cited doesn't affect the actual content of Android's design; it just influenced the team's design process. How is that bad? How does that discredit all the other things they talk about? The FastCompany article[1] linked from this blog post says:

> the CliffsNotes version is that Google creates design mantras from the point of view of the user, like “keep it brief,” “delight me in surprising ways,” and “it’s not my fault.” Each time an Android feature lives up to these expectations, they get a single marble in the good emotion jar. But every time they fail, that bad feature produces three marbles in the bad emotion jar. The marbles illustrate that bad ideas stack up quickly.

Even if this heuristic isn't scientifically proven, does it really result in worse UX than if you don't use the heuristic? I just don't get the vitriol.

[1] https://www.fastcompany.com/1672657/google-s-dead-simple-too...

As the article mentions, it's set in the metatags of the page https://turbotax.intuit.com/taxfreedom/:

    <meta name="robots" content="noindex,nofollow,noodp" />

I have a stupid question: was there a regulatory change in the recent past that made it easier to file for IPOs? Or is this just a coincidence that all these S-1s were filed around the same time?

The linked Verge article has some strange editorialization in it. I find it confusing, because I'm not sure what they're getting at.

> Systrom then immediately peaced out for a few months of paternity leave.

> With Systrom on leave, Facebook began testing location tracking and a disgusting hamburger button inside Instagram, offending Systrom’s delicate sensibilities.

Is the author saying that Systrom was being to sensitive about Facebook's demands? Or are they making fun of Facebook here? It seems like the author tried to inject some attitude into the piece without nailing down their point of view.

I really dislike comments like these, and I find it dismaying that they've gained currency on HN recently. Almost every article about Facebook or Google has some variation of this comment.

> It's almost comic villainy - like, everything they say, do, propose, etc. is always evil in some way.

The problem I have with it is that you can replace the meaning of "they", and have this comment "work" for any number of biased echo chambers. Go ahead and replace "they" with Facebook, Google, Obama, Trump, Exxon-Mobil, scientists, billionaires, politicians, Internet trolls, the media, ad nauseam.

If this sentence can work for any of these scenarios, verbatim, then what's the point of uttering it?

To bring this back to the issue at hand: is there anything Zuckerberg could say that would make you not respond this way? And if you can't come up with anything, are you sure you aren't completely biased against Facebook such that nothing they can do will ameliorate you?

I think HN in particular is too focused on "loss of privacy" as an issue. It seems to me that loss of privacy, while concerning, hasn't caused a fraction of the tangible, measurable problems in the west that misinformation and echo chambers have caused. Loss of privacy hasn't caused anti-immigrant fear-mongering, or conspiracy theorists harassing school shooting victims, or people not vaccinating their children. In areas of the world where loss of privacy _has_ caused citizen harm, it's usually as a result of a despotic regime (thinking specifically of Venezuela).

Surely there has to be some aesthetic guidance along the way?

Up until my senior year of college, every writing course I took, I would never get any _aesthetic_ feedback on my work. In grade school, my grammar and spelling would get corrected, but otherwise, what I wrote was what I wrote.

It wasn't until I took a sitcom-writing course in college that a teacher gave me feedback that would make my writing better: "this sentence is too long, you don't need to use these words, this character is too inactive, this scene has no point."

If someone had been that direct with me when I was in middle school, I'd have spent a lot less time writing crap.

I think Ben is arguing (or at least _has_ argued in past posts) that the way monopolies operate in the Internet age is completely different from how Standard Oil operated in the last century. Trying to bend the narrative around these companies to fit existing anti-trust legislation is not going to be sustainable, or will be easy for firms to slip, or will result in too few cases for prosecutors to be able to pursue.

Maybe, just as one idea, new anti-network effect legislation is the right way to attack monopolies of the present and the future.

I could be misremembering, but I think Zulip let anyone attach a message to a thread, not just the original writer (I think because it identified threads by text match).

Re #1: I realize this is the safest option for your own self-preservation, if you don't give negative feedback, how do you expect your work environment to change?

The way I see it, if you're in a bad situation at work, you have two options: try to change it, or leave. If you're going to leave anyway, why not at least try to improve your situation first so you give yourself the best chance of success? And that way, the company has the opportunity to remove or remediate a bad manager.

Basically, my reaction to your #1 is that it helps you avoid getting hurt by the worst possible scenario. But personally, I think it's a better strategy to maximize your chance at a good scenario.

Why not have everyone create their PRs against a feature branch instead of master, and merge the feature branch into master when the project is done?