shuw

Cambridge Analytica didn't need all data available to everyone. They had access to an API exactly as you'd describe: with ACLs and privacy options.

If there's a scarcity of bartenders or cashiers, then their wages will go up until that scarcity is filled.

About 3-10 people worked on this full time depending on which day in the 3 week development cycle you looked at. Most of the others helped out in their spare time in one way or another

the coins were not lost, but stolen through the transaction malleability bug

Skype has 663 million "accounts", very few of these were active.

According to http://www.statisticbrain.com/skype-statistics/, only 31 million Skype users are active as of 2012.

I'm part of the team that built this which came from different parts of FB. I think we'll be getting some much needed rest after today, then I hope we can start telling the story of how we built it.

The example they use is navigational query for "Southwest Airlines". As far as I'm concerned, the deep links to South West airlines' site such as "Flight Schedules" are actual search results.

Ignoring that, it's unfair to use one example and say that search results are 12%. Is it 12% average, 12% median, or 12% for navigational queries only?

I sampled a few of the reviews and the regularity of text patterns is just plainly obvious. I don't believe these are real reviews.

https://linkedin.com 301s to http://linkedin.com for me. Should I be suspicious or do browsers validate the certificate even during re-directs?

Revenue sharing could create perverse incentives to game the system. For example, imagine someone in Africa changing their location to United States and liking Gucci, Prada, BMW to become a honeypot. Or pretending to be a celebrity.

I don't know if Google announced this earlier, but this post just released more granular active (I assume monthly) user numbers for G+ than I've seen:

"More than 500 million people have upgraded, 235 million are active across Google (+1'ing apps in Google Play, hanging out in Gmail, connecting with friends in Search...), and 135 million are active in just the stream."

Unfortunately for Microsoft, there is more social commentary about the failure of the marketing campaign than actual #DroidRage https://twitter.com/search?q=DroidRage

Maybe I'm getting old (closing on 30) and nostalgic but the new generation of Waterloo students are making me proud and seem to be going further than my classes.

Although, I'm also gaining a little pride myself. I did was a research assistant at CTN and built the first UI tool for building the brain model. And I just joined Facebook and had the Waterloo students win the hackathon next door on my second week :)

Sure, that industry exists but it is dwarfed by the automobile and maintenance industry. I'd bet 99% of modifications to cars are to increase it's reliability or to fix an existing issue.

The performance part industry caters to very specific niche of users analogously to gamers in the PC industry. This niche should avoid iMacs.

You access the hood of your car to fix it, not to upgrade it.

Solid state technology is much more reliable than the mechanical components of a car; especially over it's lifetime (cars are expected to last > 10 years, computers < 5). Those constraints lead to vastly different optimizations made in the design.

To add some context to the title, this isn't a traditional IDE in the browser.

It's a kind of experimental touch-centric IDE with it's own semi-visual programming language (your not exactly dragging boxes around, but your not editing text either).

I only played with it for 2 minutes, but it's apparent that this is a "research" project. It's not meant as a replacement SDK for whatever is the de facto standard for Win8 apps.

According to http://www.forbes.com/sites/netapp/2012/10/11/windows-8-rele..., Microsoft plans to spend 1.5 - 1.8 Billion dollars marketing Windows 8. That's 45$ of marketing costs per copy of Windows 8 sold to date.

I was offered a job at Google and Facebook last month, both for the Seattle offices.

Google offered a bit more in terms of total pay + benefits, but I considered both packages very good and therefore not a factor in my decision.

Here are the main factors that went into my decision:

First, Google has > 10X the number of engineers as FB. By this very fact, and having been in existance for longer, the scope of things Google works on is much larger. On the other hand, FB has a much sharper focus on impact: self-driving cars simply won't get worked on because there isn't enough people and more pressing work needed to be done. This is a matter of taste, and I preferred FB here.

Second, having a family, I was concerned about work-life balance. To my friends to worked at Google, it was now a 9-5 job. At FB all-night hackathons are still very much a part of the culture, however there are lots of people with families there now (especially in Seattle). My FB friends had lives outside of work but enjoyed what they were doing and worked very hard. On the benefits side, FB offers a week more of vacation and 4 months of parental leave. In all, I give Google the edge in work-life balance.

Third, culture was very important to me. I felt that there was a sense of complacency amongst a large minority of Googlers. They worked on large, established products making incremental improvements. At Facebook, I met lots of people fired up about the V1 projects they were working on. If your entrepreneurial like myself, you might prefer the Facebook culture.

Fourth, Google tried to match me up with a team before my start date. Facebook matches employees with teams after a 6-week bootcamp. I liked the latter approach, because I could really get to know teams before I joined.

I joined Facebook last week, and my first impressions have backed up my intuition.

Metro is a full-screen experience that is a huge contrast to the desktop. It's hard not to conceptualize that as switching.

The old start menu was unobtrusive.

Assuming the page you are already on is compromised / malicious. Then it link baiting you to another compromised / malicious site is not your only worry.

If this practice was widely adopted, I wonder if AWS would experience a bank run/DOS in the affected and neighboring zones.

the majority of Marco's post was about the experience of the Microsoft Store

I'm not arguing that Moby should not try to do better.

However, there should some acknowledgement that an almost identical product has existed for years and how this differs (better UX?, more features, etc).

It's a great hobby project, but as a product it is late to the market.

http://www.glympse.com/what_is_glympse has had a product out for several years now.

The most interesting effect happened when I entered in search terms. If the search box was focused on page load, that "feature" would be more discoverable.

The beauty appears to be only skin deep. All the 1st level links I followed led to a totally different aesthetic.

As far as I can see, Microsoft.com is an improvement on a single page. I would be far more impressed if the changes extended across the site.

I also use flocking algorithm for a visualization of words on my homepage http://shuw.github.com/. I ported the algorithm to D3 here https://github.com/shuw/flock if anyone wants to reuse it

I think the headline of the original article was misleading.

It's not necessarily that the surveyors' moral compasses are confused than that opinions are more nuanced than agree / disagree.

sure, this will work if what your doing can be generated essentially off templates.

this will start breaking down when you start building components which are inter-related. every incremental change now requires understanding of the ball of spaghetti that exists.

> You can sell modified copies of physical products to your heart's content.

Yes, but only in a very limited way. You've only mentioned examples where I can modify the original physical atoms.

I cannot modify and re-distribute the ideas present in textbooks. It is those ideas that have the most value, not the paper it's printed on.