polishTar

I think the parent comment is referring to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tying_(commerce).

TLDR: If you have a monopoly in a market, you can't use your position to get a heads up in another distinct market by bundling products together. Ex: Microsoft can't use their monopoly position in the OS market to get an advantage in browsers by bundling IE with Windows.

It's my understanding that this doesn't apply if you don't have a monopoly, and it also doesn't apply unless you're actually bundling the sale of multiple things together.

Doesn't seem to be relevant here IMO.

Earth is not big enough to fully eclipse the sun at the L2 point, but it doesn't matter anyways since JWST was deliberately put in an orbit around the L2 point that never enters the earth's eclipse for energy reasons since the solar panels are not large enough to provide sufficient power during an eclipse.

https://space.stackexchange.com/a/57378

Yes, the state legislature and governor of AZ are GOP, and they were the ones that pushed for this.

There's a selection bias you need to consider. Twitter investors probably wouldn't be Twitter investors if they thought it was on the decline without significant growth prospects.

Well, that'd be exhausting, but it didn't take long to find that since he became a celeb-investor in late 2015 (when the movie came out), he's made similar predictions including: a couple weeks after the movie's release (https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2015/12/big-short-genius-say...), in 2017 (https://www.lombardiletter.com/michael-burry-stock-market-cr...), in 2019 (https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/04/the-big-shorts-michael-burry...), and now obviously in 2021.

Continually predicting the market is about to crash seems to be his thing.

Why can't a compiler optimize that? Perhaps I'm naive, but it seems totally possible for a compiler to have some sort of heuristic that allows it to do this transformation behind-the-scenes when it makes sense

I think the idea is to align the financial incentives of the employee with the financial incentives of the company. Some companies (usually pre-revenue ones) might also do it to reduce cash expenses, but that seems unlikely to be Google's motivation in this case for the reason you pointed out.

Not anymore. As of a couple months ago its been opened up. anyone (in the service area) can use it.

Relevant blog post: https://blog.waymo.com/2020/10/waymo-is-opening-its-fully-dr...

I suppose. It's optional in the sense that the DMCA process is the alternative, and the DMCA sucks really bad.

My interpretation of google's copyright system is that it tries to straddle the line of being both significantly less punishing to content creators while also giving enough of a remedy to rightsholders so they don't end up preferring the DMCA takedown.

The system is completely useless if rightsholders disfavor it and use the DMCA instead (which by law they can do at any time). This is a really unfortunate challenge around the design of copyright systems like googles that isn't often appreciated.

All this would be so much easier if the DMCA was just reformed. There are so many obvious changes that could be made to make it much more tolerable and remove the need for complex systems like google's.

It's a bit more complicated than that.

Google's system is optional for both the content creator and the rightsholder. If the rightsholder would prefer to use the DMCA, they obviously can. If the content creator would prefer the rightsholder use the DMCA, they can dispute+appeal which will force the rightsholder to file a DMCA takedown if they want to continue with their claim.

Unfortunately there's often a lot of confusion about the dispute+appeals process, since it's a multi-step process and there's a ton of people incorrectly conflating disputes with appeals, but the important takeaway is that a content creator can choose to force a DMCA takedown via an appeal (which happens after a rejected dispute).

The reason content creators rarely choose to go the route of forcing a DMCA takedown is because:

1) the only remedy for a DMCA takedown is a removal of the entire video, which is often less preferable than the remedies offered by the google process (ex: replacing/muting the audio in the claimed section, monetization split, restrictions in only some geographical regions)

2) the DMCA repeat infringers clause requires that companies terminate relationships with people that repeatedly get DMCA takedowns. This manifests on YouTube as a 3-strikes-and-your-channel-is-deleted policy that only applies to DMCA takedowns, but not copyright claims that come through the optional google process.

3) There's some scary warnings about how particularly vindictive rightsholders react to this by choosing to file a lawsuit against the creator in addition to filing the DMCA takedown

It's a genuinely hard problem, but they do have appeal systems that creators can use that go to human reviewer queues for things like video removals and demonetization even though the first pass is done via automation, but don't think humans aren't immune from mistakes either.

As of 2018 youtube had 10,000 manual reviewers (and I imagine it's significantly more than that today), but at their scale, that realistically won't go that far.

Laws against defamation chill defamation.

Dominion will argue defamation in court which will require them to prove ALL of the following: 1) a false statement purporting to be fact; 2) communication of that statement to a third person; 3) fault amounting to at least negligence; and 4) harm caused to Dominion.

If Dominion can prove those things to the satisfaction of a judge and jury, they should win. Our justice system is supposed to deter people from breaking the law.

Corporations also have the first amendment right to include or exclude whatever they want on their own websites.

Section 230 just stops people from suing services for the speech of their users, ie you can't sue twitter for anything donald trump tweets even if it's illegal/defamatory/etc.

If section 230 didn't exist, then services would become liable for every action their users take on their platforms. I don't understand why people think this would reduce censorship, it'd be the exact opposite. If section 230 wasn't a thing, services would mitigate legal risk by censoring to an unprecedented degree.

Waymo One doesn't use NDAs and users are allowed to bring friends with them, but Waymo also has an "early rider" program that's more restrictive and does use NDAs.

They of course can always do a buyback or dividend (unless of course there's some tax reason why it's beneficial to defer till later).

Nit: In November, he stepped down as CTO. He still has a part part-time role at Oculus with the title of 'consulting CTO'

A couple of things to consider:

1. There's a real social cost associated with constantly subjecting human reviewers to traumatizing content. It can lead to devastating mental health problems. (some relevant articles: https://www.theverge.com/2019/2/25/18229714/cognizant-facebo..., https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2019/12/16/youtube-mo...)

2. Humans make mistakes as well, especially as volume of content increases and policies get more nuanced.

3. There's way more violating content then you could ever imagine. As just one example, YouTube reported having to remove >1.8 BILLION comments for spam or other policy violations in 2019 (https://transparencyreport.google.com/youtube-policy).

4. The large tech companies spend billions on human moderation as it is. YouTube alone for example has >10,000 full time human reviewers. (https://youtube.googleblog.com/2017/12/expanding-our-work-ag...)

I suppose I’d rather risk the 1/4 chance of getting ptsd vs the guarantee of moderate/severe brain injury if it was a choice

Yea, this is super important to emphasize. Even though surgical and homemade masks are only good at filtering out a portion of the larger respiratory droplets, that's still going to be a lot better than nothing.

This is the same reason the medical authorities have recommended these types of masks for healthcare professionals in areas where N95's are not available. It's better than nothing.

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/ppe-strategy/f... (see "HCP use of homemade masks")

If the slots are so valuable that it makes sense to fly empty flights to keep them, then certainly it would also make sense for a disruptor to start flying empty flights to steal them if they were left unused.

There were ways for him to communicate those same ideas less negatively.

And it was more than just the "garbage" line. It was also things like "If I haven't convinced you of that by now, I don't know what I can say.", and "See how simplistic - and self-centered - your expectation is?".

Writing this way doesn't "streamline" anything. I interpreted it as a negative interaction, and clearly others have as well including the original author (since he said as much in his response).

I think these types of adversarial attacks are even easier to foil than that because they're specific to one particular set of weights. Even really really small changes in the training data or model could invalidate the attack if I understand correctly.

Uber is a good example in that the $54B+ valuation by Wall Street is in spite of the company's enormous short term losses.

Whether or not Wall St is right about Uber's future prospects, I think it's a pretty clear (non-Amazon) example of them ignoring the short-term and looking at the long-term potential. Frankly, they're probably overestimating the future opportunity of Uber, at least in my opinion.

Wall St is not the only-focused-on-the-short-term boogie man that some people would make you think. It's a very convenient excuse for some (typically poorly performing) CEO's, but it really isn't the case.

If you object to the Amazon example because the CEO was also the founder, there are many other examples of extremely long-term focused companies where that isn't true. A really good example is Uber. Honestly, Uber is probably far too long-term focused and it'd be better if Wall St punished them more. It's pretty hard to accuse Wall St of being short-term focused on that one.

That said, I totally agree with you that experimentation is good, and the LTSE is a valuable experiment. Maybe we can learn something from it, even if it's worse than what we already have.

> Any claims about speed, efficiency, or performance whether in comments or during the review must have accompanying microbenchmarks or they should be deleted.

That's way too strict. If I want to suggest moving a statement that's inside a loop to the outside, I don't want to waste my time writing microbenchmarks showing that it improves performance.

If the suggestion is complicated or non-obvious, and it's in a really critical part of the code, then sure, write a benchmark. Outside of that though, it's rarely a good use of developer time.

Also, why would they even care about reporting high numbers? Facebook's leadership doesn't have any of the typical business pressures to please investors. Leadership (Zuckerberg) already holds majority voting power, and Facebook is fully self sufficient financially (no concerns about needing to raise more capital at poor prices).

I imagine this is fairly common actually.

If it is, it's not difficult to introduce a system to deal with it (and they may already have such a system). All it'd need to do is normalize ratings or at least reduce the weight of negative ratings if the rater always gives negative ratings.