mwhitfield

No, it's

average poverty ≝ average(1 / annual income)

Inversely proportional to the harmonic mean of average yearly income.

I've had *very* much the opposite experience. Very nearly every AI skeptic take I read has exactly this opinion, if not always so well-articulated (until the last section, which lost me). But counterarguments always attack the complete strawman of "AI is utterly useless," which very few people, at least within the confines of the tech and business commentariat, are making.

Or the twitter account of any VC

Huh? On Android at least, re-routing in navigation requires an explicit confirmation from you.

The headline, as always, is disingenuous. They were asked why they couldn't lock third parties out of this level of unprotected system access, and said that the 2009 ruling prevented them from doing so. Which is simply factually correct.

You're maybe not wrong, but I'm pretty sure I was reading this same comment 10 years ago, when we were just calling it deep learning.

There are hundreds of millions or billions of us, though, depending on how broad a brush you use. Any given issue or value is going to have someone, in fact quite a lot of someones, on every conceivable side of it. Even if you limit your scope to the people who have a substantial voice in the culture.

It's only "hypocrisy" if it's the same people saying it. The media zeitgeist is not a person.

You gotta remember, what's being sold in this kind of pitch is not a business model. They're looking for unicorns. What's being sold is the maximum possible size of the market you can extract value from.

I'm no VC, but I feel like if I am and you're telling me that _all_ consumer transactions of any kind are going to flow through a portal _you_ own, it doesn't get much bigger than that. The odds of success don't have to be that high, and in principle you just factor the possibility that the founder's full of crap into those odds; you don't have the time to understand every possible market and every person pitching you in the depth necessary to make that determination, right?

Not to mention the "Earning" medium is independent of the "Playing" medium. The conflicting incentives don't come into play (as much), i.e. the game can still actually be fun.

> a panoply of boundaries in executive humanity

Anyone else's brain kind of error out trying to parse this phrase?

> We bring in store consumers... transparency.

I mean... come on. Surely someone must have noticed this? Is it some kind of cruel joke?

Can you elaborate which parts of the style you feel "will not be taken seriously"? It looks like a pretty standard resume to me.

Maybe, but it's not as though that sentiment comes out of nowhere. If we compare the general consensus on the success of Prohibition vs, say, the campaign against drunk driving in the 80s and 90s, it's easy to feel quite cautious about the wisdom of bans in the area of substance addiction/abuse. Of course, the circumstances and environment are quite different in this case than Prohibition, so there's still plenty of unknowns, but still.

The "radiation hardening" aspect is metaphorical, this is referring specifically to removing characters, not bit-flips from gamma rays.

Telescope[1] is pretty central to navigation in Neovim these days. Think Ctrl-P in VSCode, but for any entity in your editor or workspace, not just files. Files in workspace, buffers (open files), ripgrep results, LSP symbols / references, etc. Also provides a live preview of search results without having to open them. Plus easily add results to your quickfix list, making large-scale edits easy.

[1]:https://github.com/nvim-telescope/telescope.nvim

Thank you for phrasing the comment I came here to make better than I could.

This article (much like a lot of views expressed on this site) mostly just reads as someone jumping from a startup to large-business environment for the first time, and not grokking the very legitimate and unshakable reasons such an org has for being more conservative and process-heavy. Yes, that kind of thing has to be monitored and constantly worked on to ensure it doesn't grow out of control, but some level of bureaucracy is a feature, not a bug, for a large, successful organization. At Google's scale, that "some level" is quite high.

> the situation where those APIs and team boundaries are exclusively (or at least primarily) composed of separate applications communicating over the network

Sure, I guess if you completely redefine the word "microservice" to something completely different from the common understanding, it makes more sense.

If someone is writing about "microservices," they are generally talking about the situation where those APIs and team boundaries are exclusively (or at least primarily) composed of separate applications communicating over the network. Not what you're talking about.

Tickets are 10-15 dollars, the assumption here is that bill is mostly food.

I don't think that was the expectation, not sure where you read that into it. The two examples he gave were for the bar in the lobby and a total bill that would be mainly food. This is presumably a Drafthouse or one of the similar places that have full waiter service at your seat.