199 karma · joined December 15, 2010
It is not a mobile app. You export your data from Google (thanks GDPR!), and filter out personally identifiable data points before submitting. We also let you know exactly who is about to use your donated data (we only allow academic researchers to have access), and give you advance notice so you can delete it if you don’t want your data to be used in a particular project.
We are MIT licensed and are figuring out how to make data donation safe via UX and engineering. We need all the help we can get - even if it’s just feedback. Feel reach out! Nessup@gmail.com
Edit: Google to the rescue:
https://mjtsai.com/blog/2019/11/04/electron-apps-rejected-fr...
I wonder how much of this will be Rust? :)
> Imagine we replace the Comment button with a Let’s Meet button. When we want to post something controversial, we can have the choice to say, “Hey let’s talk about this” in person, not online.
Why would Facebook, or any "attention seeking" Internet company for that matter, do this? You can even tell the interviewer is skeptical. If he had suggested, say, that we should take our business to consumer companies whose business models don't rely on attention grabbing, that would've at least been a start. Instead he suggests we "become more self-aware" and "transform design." Which consumers should become self-aware? Why would entrenched companies change their design? The idealism is nice and all, but so far I think this has been a wasted opportunity to fix a real problem. The messaging could be far more specific and realistic. But at least we're talking about it.
> The size of a function, including it’s signature, the white space and even comments can affect whether the function can be inlined by V8 or not. Yes: adding a comment to your function may cause a performance hit somewhere in the range of a 10% speed reduction.
Uhh... byeee
> The study found no link between sugar intake and new mood disorders in women and it is unclear why.
This, plus the fact that many socio-economic realities changed over the course of the study, makes it hard to believe there aren't other confounders at play here.
> The study found no link between sugar intake and new mood disorders in women and it is unclear why. More research is needed to test the sugar-depression effect in large population samples.
There is literally no further comment on why this effect was not observed in women. Why? To me, this means it's possible that some confounder is at play here.
I'm also with Xeoncross (another commenter here) who observed that this study took place from 1983 to 2013. Quoting him:
> Sugar consumption has gone up, so has US inflation, less overall exercise, social media consumption, and a variety of other possible negative factors.
So you're telling me that the link was not observable in women, AND that many social/economic realities changed in the course of the study, and we're supposed to believe there was little room left for confounders? This reeks.
Let me know if you plan on continuing it. I'd love to collaborate.