simplecomplex

No, it’s not creepy. Don’t broadcast stuff on a service that’s meant to solicit replies from random people if you don’t want replies from random people. The constant social media outrage media is tiring and melodramatic.

It would be cool if Twitter had a moderated option, like how many blogs manage comments.

Why is this such a popular story ? There’s literally hundreds of new gTLDs and they get released all the time.

Yeah I find it hard to believe anyone eats literally 100% meat no exceptions.

I’ll bet $1000 Jordan Pederson is full of shit when he claims he eats nothing but cooked beef.

The requirement for vitamin C is a fact of human biology, and established science.

Either you’re getting it from your dairy or other dietary sources or eating enough meat that’s raw enough to get your minimum.

My experience as a lactose person is that people tend to greatly underestimate how much dairy they consume, which is largely fortified (edit: as others point out it’s not fortified with vitamin C).

When you say all meat diet are you sure you’re not exaggerating? You probably consume all sorts of other stuff in small quantities. You don’t have any candy ever (often a source of vitamin C)? No potato chips ever? No cheese ever? No fortified yogurt or milk ever? You don’t ever eat cheeseburgers with buns or cheese or mayo?

Treat your business as if you were investing. Would you spend your hard earned $100k on a startup with no idea, no plan, and no exit strategy. And would you bank all of your life’s savings on it?

The time to quit and do this is when you have some customers and revenue, a plan, and need the time to grow it. Take a vacation, start it, and get your first customer, and work on it in your free time.

If you mean logical paradox there can’t really be any because computer programs are necessarily logically consistent. See Gödel's incompleteness theorems.

Are the investors actually making Reddit censor or is this just the latest xenophobic rage bait?

America sure loves its China/Russia scaremongering.

> Sure I could have purchased a subscription to the Washington Post, but I don’t believe opinion pieces should be behind a paywall and I certainly don’t believe that something like Dingell’s last words should be behind a paywall.

Quite cheap for a millionaire (billionaire?)! Just think about that for a second. It’s comical. Newspapers were never free. Ever. People subscribed or bought them in a vending machine or news stand.

> have ceded their role as the public square to places like Twitter and Medium that remain open and free.

They aren’t free. They both burn massive amounts of cash. Medium isn’t profitable and Twitter lost money for 12 years before stuffing it with ads to turn a profit. Oh and most importantly, Twitter doesn’t have to pay a single journalist or reporter! Hard for a VC to understand, but WaPo is actually concerned with making money.

> But the way paywalls are implemented today stinks. Some content should never ever be put behind one.

Well that’s just like your opinion, man. WaPo has been profitable under this model.

Speak for yourself. A payday loan was the only thing that bailed me out from missing rent and getting evicted.

Payday loans are a lot less predatory than every major bank credit card. They at least ensure you have money to pay them back.

Are any of those issues comparable to cutting all the trees down? Fires and beatles and dead wood are natural.

Yes, obviously. The API is the same though. The interface.

Fully typed functional languages (Haskell for example) have this ability.

The linked Facebook article includes a screenshot of the feature in Spotify allowing people to send and receive Facebook messages.

"In order for you to write a message to a Facebook friend from within Spotify, for instance, we needed to give Spotify “write access.” For you to be able to read messages back, we needed Spotify to have “read access.” “Delete access” meant that if you deleted a message from within Spotify, it would also delete from Facebook."

You've got an axe to grind and its tiring me out. Whatever.

I'm refuting that they gave away user data, which is factually false. Here's Facebook's explanation: https://newsroom.fb.com/news/2018/12/facebooks-messaging-par...

"In order for you to write a message to a Facebook friend from within Spotify, for instance, we needed to give Spotify “write access.” For you to be able to read messages back, we needed Spotify to have “read access.” “Delete access” meant that if you deleted a message from within Spotify, it would also delete from Facebook. No third party was reading your private messages, or writing messages to your friends without your permission. Many news stories imply we were shipping over private messages to partners, which is not correct."

It's become clear from engaging in this discussion that people aren't interested in facts or context, but have a chip on their shoulder about Facebook. Others have also been misinformed by inaccurate news stories.

I don't even use Facebook, yet it's pretty easy to understand the facts if you're actually interested in them.

If VCs don't pay you then they're VCs who don't understand how to take care of their investment.

Part-time or full-time is a separate issue. Working for free or entirely for equity when there's money in the bank is a losing game.

“Did partners get access to messages? Yes. But people had to explicitly sign in to Facebook first to use a partner’s messaging feature,” Konstantinos Papamiltiadis, director of developer platforms and programs at Facebook, wrote in the blog post.

“Take Spotify for example. After signing in to your Facebook account in Spotify’s desktop app, you could then send and receive messages without ever leaving the app. Our API provided partners with access to the person’s messages in order to power this type of feature.”

Facebook did not play fast and loose with peoples data or abuse their privacy. They don’t sell or give away user data.

No, they didn’t “give it away”. Please let’s stick to facts. The news is being extremely dishonest. Apps that you could send FB messages through could see the message (how else would it work?) And it was explicitly opt-in, users had to authorize it.

“Take Spotify for example. After signing in to your Facebook account in Spotify’s desktop app, you could then send and receive messages without ever leaving the app. Our API provided partners with access to the person’s messages in order to power this type of feature.”

https://www.thewrap.com/members/2018/12/19/facebook-admits-n...

Make medical imaging devices that can be used at home for low cost.

MRIs, ultrasounds, xrays, etc would all need at-home or cheap replacements.

Yeah, they didn’t steal your data. They were negligent with storing data on you given to them by lenders, and if you can demonstrate you were actually damaged by their negligence you can join the class action that’s happening. You should have got an email about it. I know I did.

They don’t. It’s just part of the privacy and Facebook hysteria being pushed by the rage-machine that is the news cycle now.

Equifax is a credit reporting agency. So, for example, someone gets a loan from a bank, then fails to pay it and the bank reports that to them. Other lenders check with them before lending to people.

You’re being disingenuous by equating that with theft.

SEO is extremely simple. This is all you need to know to rank top page on Google: Get lots of backlinks from sites with good Google ranking to blog articles on your site about the subject you want to rank for.

In other words, publish content people want to link to, and get big players to link to it.

That’s it. Other SEO advice is usually a distraction or snake oil.

Do you have access logs? Just parse those. You probably already have the analytics.

I’m pretty sure you can setup access logs for static sites on S3

I track conversion rate on all my sites without JS, for free, and without hitting a DB on each request. I just download my access logs and parse them with a 5 line script.

I don’t see the point in tracking anything but conversion. I don’t need to know screen size or browser breakdown, because my websites are responsive, and work in all browsers since IE8.

For those using Google Analytics and the like: what are you actually tracking and taking action on?

Anti-trust isn’t equipped to deal with anything because it’s arbitrary and vague. “You’re too big because some bureaucrats said so” is not law. That’s not justice. It’s totalitarian.

How can a company avoid breaking the law if they don’t know they’re breaking it?

You think that’s a good thing? And that the government is needed so Facebook can give users a little confirmation dialog?

Is it illegal to sell phones with google play services? Which law? Which case is this?

Anti-trust is vague and arbitrary. Companies can’t avoid violation because it’s not clear what a violation actually is.

> The competition regulator ruled that Facebook would now have to obtain users’ permission before merging data from other sites.

So, more useless warnings like the cookie permission pop ups littered all over the internet.

Who actually thinks this is a good thing? Why?

In my experience, bugs do not happen “most of the time” (OPs words). I’ve been a software engineer for 12 years. High quality software is software that works, for the required use cases and devices.

> ... most of the time

> ... for the required use cases.