rayvy

I think this is my problem. I don't have an idea of anything I want to build specifically, I kinda just want to hack around on something.

My approach to learning new things is to usually read a bit, download it/import it and just start trying things. But that doesn't seem like a practical route when trying to build p2p applications?

Yes

Love how Johnson is in this scenario XD . That guy seems to always find himself in the right place, at the right time I guess

Totally and absolutely agree here.

> Sad thing is, the vast majority of people are oblivious or flat out don't care.

Also totally agree here

And here's some real thought experiment stuff I've been doing. So basically, should we continue this (unchecked population, unsustainable resource depletion), something has to give right? That's an absolute fact. Our pace of reproduction and resource use simply can't go on forever, and that's where things will get interesting. Will later generations (think 1,000 years+) have adapted a bit better? (E.g., in the future polluting the ocean for example is a crime on the scale of kidnapping or something similar).

I mean the fact at the end of the day is, this can't be sustained. Something is going to have to give in the way we live, eat, have kids, etc (and by we I mean all earthlings, I'm aware that the US reproduces at a fraction of the rate of emerging/frontier countries).

It's a really interesting problem with no clear solutions

> "All I want is to be able to give companies my money in exchange for not being spied on, manipulated, or locked into some walled garden....Is my money not good enough for them?

Can someone elaborate a bit on this idea? Are we at a point where there is something more valuable than money itself? Data? Is this the point where Google et al can say "Nah, we actually don't want your flat out subscription fee cause that's pennies on the dollar compared to what we can get with our data collection efforts"

I've made snarky remarks to this kind of thinking in the past but I didn't take it too seriously. Does anyone else see this becoming a real problem?

If company XYZ offers service/product A, should I be able to buy that product/service flat out, (if I'm financially able) without bells and whistles even if company XYZ insists on adding bells and whistles? (i.e., data collection). Is that somehow a sort of right as a consumer?

Uhh I definitely wouldn't compare Michael Jackson to a Zuckerbot/Sandberg (the latter were raised in seemingly wholesome suburban families and just seem to have ego/greed issues, while the former (not being a saint himself or anything) was the victim on an abusive/oppressive childhood). Don't really want to get into this, as it'd be an unrelated tangent.

TLDR: this is a horrible attempt at drawing a parallel

Personally after working in my support role (we support our main revenue generating platform), I'm absolutely changing my next position to be more on the revenue/main-platform side.

This ^

2) Accept that #1 might happen. As in truly accept this as a possibility

3) Work in ways to mitigate #1. What active steps can you start taking right this very minute to mitigate any potential damage done from the worst case scenario in #1?

First time ever hearing this. What an interesting expression

> You cannot get promoted beyond a certain level in this place unless you...

YES! It's soooo not about smarts/(true) impact/anything truly relevant - it's about racing to the bottom via launches, and crazy ways to generate revenue. I find is so funny looking back, that pre-undergrad-graduation, I thought promotions came via actually doing great things.

> people internally usually warn about this shit, complain about it, file bugs about shitty performance, etc. It is ALL ignored

It's hilarious how L2s and L3s truly just don't give a damn about the opinions of those working at the company (first-level employees and those just above that)

After this job, I AM DONE with this big company ish. I'll leave that to the new-grads who still believe you get promoted by being smart ;)

rant over

This! I'm reading in the thread here about people not arranging the right times, and people responding to recruiters who clearly don't care, and people jumping through all kinds of hoops, and I'm just here kind of in disbelief.

A good way to think about interviewing/being recruited, is in terms of dating. If an attractive woman says she's gonna call you, never does, then when you see her on the street she gives you some "Oh my dad's aunt's cousin's dog was sick" excuse, you're pretty much an idiot for ever thinking she was into you in the first place, and continuing to want her.

Another thing is that these folks have no idea that by continuing to be straddled and dragged along (and basically bullshitted), they're confirming that "Hey, I'm desperate for this job, so sure, I'll let you walk all over me". Which thus reduces their attractiveness as candidates. A recruiter misses a call with me? No reply. A company doesn't follow through on what they said they'd do or bullshits me in the slightest way? No reply. This approach is definitely a gamble, but you have to have confidence in the fact that "Hey, I'm great at what I do and anyone who gets me is lucky to have me".

Again, not that different from dating.

Um and why is that exactly?

The rest of your comment is pretty off base from the parent, so I won't address.

At least from what you've quoted, I have a hard time seeing your point. Seems to be a fairly conservative conversation from a 47 year-old entrepreneurial billionaire physicist, and an interviewer. She asks questions and he gives her straightforward answers with no fluff.

While I would agree that he (clearly) doesn't play by the rules of mortals (how could you, and get to where he's gotten?), I'd hardly call this a matter of he just doesn't care about the interpersonal social status dynamics at play

I'm always so confused by people who want us to go to Mars (cough Elon Musk), like that's suddenly going to make humans not do human ish. Like Mars is going to make us suddenly not racist. Like Mars is suddenly going to make us start giving a damn about our environment and fellow man. It's kind've laughable honestly.

But from what I read it sounds as if Google had to pay him the $90MM+, else be sued by him right? Because if they didn't pay him, he'd sue, then they [Google] would have to prove that he [Rubin] acted maliciously (or whatever), which would've been hard (if not impossible) to do, given that the accuser said they were coerced (not forced).

So it seems as if Google's hands were tied legally on this.

But seeing how fast the space is moving, another platform might come along in a few years that has a better implementation than EOS (thus leading to more TPS).

[1] https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-ab&q=eos+tr...

Unless you're a large premium publisher like say a NYT, a Techcrunch, or even a Forbes, more of your traffic probably wont be real, and you have little to no control over that. The online ad/traffic buying game is so mind-blowingly convoluted, you can be a small publisher (foo.com), having your site spammed, and what little revenue you've made via your supply completely wiped out (i.e., clawed back by your upstream partner - even large publishers don't operate by themselves), and your reputation takes a hit.

The main people getting stiffed are the web users, and the advertisers. But it doesn't seem like either of them care enough about it to do something that can have a lasting effect

1. Gather a bunch of PMs 2. Put them all in a room and have them put wacky ideas into a large hat 3. Pull ideas out of the hat, and go with the first one that sounds decent

Some don't need as much of it (e.g., Google), but quite literally saying "there's fraud in my online traffic" is like saying "there's tomato sauce in my spaghetti". It's quite literally such a normal thing that I've become immune to even getting roused by it (and remember, again, I work to find ad-fraud daily).

Does this make it right? No, absolutely not. But is this ever going to change, absolutely not. Too many people are making too much money from this. Just you try to tell an L2 that they can't hit their Q4 Revenue OKR because "we're doing something really immoral by allowing fraud".

Don't make me laugh XD