sonnyblarney

Actually, the US used to have any number of currencies in the 19th centuries and it was a mess.

Having a centralized currency is a reasonable thing, though the Fed is a private entity, it operates ultimately like other central banks.

The banks don't have any special power - if you want to open one, you can do that right now.

If they did have some special sauce, VC would be pouring it, and mostly, it's not.

Banks don't make their money or derive their power through the 'creation of money'.

FB's move into this arena is possibly more destabilizing than anything, hopefully, the opportunities will outweigh the risks.

Yes, I have to agree with cromwellian here.

I think the it's ok to disagree, that's the whole point of discussion.

That doesn't deserve a downvote on HN.

>>> ""Trump situation", and by situation, one would assume, the massive abuse of social platforms to spread false and misleading data about Clinton, "

I don't know how one would assume the term "Trump situation" would imply "all the lies about Clinton on social media".

A more direct interpretation of her statement would be "we don't like Trump".

Now - of course you could be right, but I don't see how her words communicate that fact at all.

If the exec was concerned about 'all the lies about Clinton' - why didn't she just say that?

I don't think that 'getting rid of lies' is counter factual, nor is it controversial.

If this exec was communicating something along the lines of:

"There was some interference and misinformation in the last election, and it possibly affected the outcome, we want to make sure people are well informed"

That'd be great! There would be no scandal, nothing to talk about. This would be Google just 'doing their job' in a fairly conventional manner. But she didn't use that language, she went much further.

>>> "I'd argue the definition of a Doctor is genderless,"

Nobody is going to argue that.

But what does that have to do with offering up as a 'first suggestion' when people type 'men can' ---> 'have babies'?

Making sure the world is informed about that very specific 'fact' that does require some contextualization, is an ideological problem, and this has nothing to do with 'un-biasing' our databases': it's projecting a whole set of ideals.

So the 'first problem' with the 'Social Justice search algorithm approach' is that it will extend far beyond 'un-biasing'. It will go straight into ideology and narrative.

But the more subtle problem of 'un-biasing our databases' is the fact that it's going to be difficult to determine what bias is.

So instead of 'Doctor' how about - 'Truck Driver'. About 6% of Truck Drivers are female. Is this a 'bias' problem in society? Do we need to 'unbias' our data to make sure that every representation of 'Truck Driver' is 50%/50%?

What about race? In Sweden, there are almost zero Black Doctors, mostly by virtue of the fact there's very few Black people in Sweden of course. So, in Swedish search results, how do we represent the image of 'Doctor'? 15% Black? 50% Black?

What's the 'unbiased' racial representation of 'Doctor' in a country that fairly ethnically homogenous?

So the very mention of 'un-biasing databases' is a frightening, Orwellian concept, again, because it'll take a considerable amount ideology for someone to determine what 'unbiased' even is.

>>> "Anti-social justice warrior people aren't going to like it,"

"Anti-Social Justice Warrior" people are not generally not 'Anti Social Justice' - and they are not likely opposed to having search results showing a Female, or Black Doctor, or Pilot (or even Truck Driver), but there's a very legitimate concern about the extent to which information is manipulated, and how it's manipulated.

The examples given in the reference article I feel go beyond issues of 'getting rid of fake news' and go far beyond merely showing a 'female Doctor' on a search for Doctor.

The terminology she used was along the lines of 'correcting for historical injustice'. Terminology like that, and more directly 'un-biasing our databases' I interpret as 're-writing information to suit my view of the world and how it ought to be' - which is surely 'Social Justice' in the minds of those tampering with the data, but it's not to others.

Given the magnitude of the influence of Google, this issue has to be addressed in a more open and transparent fashion, and it probably needs to be regulated (and publicly communicated) - and in any case there needs to be more competition in search.

Edit: I should add, doing things like carefully altering AI training data so that the tech doesn't erroneously and in a 'biased' fashion identify 'black people' as more likely to be criminal is totally fair game (as we learned with MS's 'racist' AI). But we should be thoughtful and deliberative about such things.

Those are all legitimate points.

I don't think anyone is concerned about Google trying to get past fake news (or rather, surely there are few voices there)

The issues are more disconcerting, like senior executives trying to make sure that 'Trump never happens again', the assumption being either 'voters were so deeply misinformed' or that 'Trump is illegitimate because of who he is'.

If the former, well, ok, possibly, but I feel that G will end up leaning on the bias to try to tell us 'how bad Trump' is. If it's the later, well, this would be deeply anti-democratic.

The new policy sheds light on how they'll go about this - in the article they reference to how, when people type 'Clinton emails' that there should be no reference to the ostensible scandal. This is possibly problematic as Hillary Clinton was asked to produce emails by the Feds and decided to delete most of them: this is a legit scandal. Arguably, G is suppressing this information because they don't deem it factual? Or newsworthy?

More extensively, they gave examples of how they are going to move from 'truth' to 'fair' in an intersectional manner by offering ups suggestions that 'balance historical injustice'.

Open google.com right how, if you type 'women can' you get suggestions such as 'vote, fly, do anything'. If you type 'men can' you'll get as a first suggestion 'have babies'.

While the former is uncontroversial (i.e of course women can vote and fly), is this really Google's place to start to suggest such things unless they are material to historical searches? And the male suggestion, doesn't really line up with the female example. 'Men can have babies'? Well, this a very narrow and specifically intersectional ideal, while maybe it's technically true, I don't see how bringing up that issue in the context of someone searching is relevant to anything at all (again, unless it fits some kind of algorithmic purpose i.e. it's a popular search).

The notion that Google, the manger of the world's information, is going to 'right historical wrongs' is in some ways very good, I mean, who doesn't want to make 'wrong things right'? But of course it's utterly Orwellian in practice, with a small group of ideologues deciding what we should see and not, based on their unique worldview.

The implications of this new 'right the wrongs of history' worldview on search results is beyond scary.

So yes: getting rid of fake news, trying to point out narrative, calling out lies - sure.

Problematic: trying to feed people content that Google deems 'more appropriate'.

Scary: modifying search results and suggestions to be consistent with their worldview and to 'right the wrongs of history'.

I don't trust the talent and overall goodwill of Google anymore, I think they need to be regulated and there needs to be more transparency.

I also think it would be ideal to end the monopoly and try on actual diversity, i.e. real competition.

"but almost any Facebook software engineer has permission to still take super user actions"

If this is true, I find it shocking in light of all of the recent allegations especially.

I'd disagree. The narrative in 60 minutes often decontextualizes information to the point of misrepresentation. It's a matter of thresholds.

Every investigative journo program selectively edits their interviews.

If you see some 'behind the scenes' from 60 minutes, CBC, BBC ... it's all edited to elicit the 'prime moments' and often in the favour of the narrative they're trying to present.

I suggest Vertias is definitely worse, I think they are seedy, I don't trust it outright, but there's unavoidably real material there.

So - low journalistic standards, but sometimes access to key information.

I think that goes a little too far.

I don't trust them very much as an entity, I think they are kind of seedy and 'slant' their findings, no doubt.

But there is materiality in their revelations.

It's a 'noisy channel' so to speak, but there's 'materiality' in the noise.

"they already spectacularly failed to prevent a Trump election."

They were not trying to prevent it. Google was just a search engine, trying to do their best. Since Trump, their view on information has changed from 'neutral' to 'fairness'. Their view of 'fairness' is politically loaded, and examples are given in the docs.

There is no doubt that Google can change the outcome of elections - this is for sure. If they really wanted to put their finger on the scales hard, they could.

I'm very concerned about the recent revelations, and I don't think that their 'fairness' policy is actually fair, but I wonder how much effect it will actually have. It's so hard to measure.

I think it's relatively important.

CEO's tend err on the side of hubris, and it'd seem they all have strong political views. I think power maybe does that. So in a more informal 'TGIF' setting, I'm not surprised to see some of it come out, however uncomfortable (whether or not I disagree with the position is different, but I definitely disagree with political dialogue at the office by CEO's).

But today's revelation indicate more broadly material policy, i.e. 'not just off the cuff CEO's remarks'. Also, there's some information regarding the efforts of AI to 'rebalance' information, it's downright scary.

I don't believe that their activity is remotely 'neutral' and given some of the statements it seems they are blissfully ignorant of how people could possibly disagree with them. It's definitely a bubble.

Today's revelations have crossed the rubicon for me, I'm putting Google effectively in the 'bad company' camp.

I used to trust Google's goodwill and talent more than government, but now I don't.

I want Google to be broken up, and for there to be some kind of transparency and oversight into their algorithms.

This is a very good anecdote, and helps us understand that 'shit' is in the eye of the beholder.

If it solves a real problem, and allows companies to do 'xyz' , maybe it doesn't matter if there are bugs and glitches here and there.

If there is only 'one kind of car' and that's all anyone knew, nobody would mind that there were always leaky oil issues if the alternative was 'horses'.

Long range hypersonic/cruise missiles with micronucleaer warheads. They have them demoing right now, they'll eventually work out the bugs.

That said, it's all armchair because a) We don't know what they really have b) we don't know what kind of amazing gear the US has hidden away or c) how any of it will really hold up in a war.

None of it has been tested.

So maybe the Russians launch a bunch of newfangled missiles and they basically don't find their target. Maybe they all do.

Maybe the Russian s300's totally wipe out F22s, or maybe it's a mirage and they are irrelevant. So many factors: training, conditions, countermeasures, sabotage, overwhelming force etc. etc..

Maybe the vast number of crappy Chinese subs overwhelm the US navy over there. Maybe the US has a combination of tech+procedure that makes all of those little diesel subs pointless. Or maybe they only need 1 or 2 to 'get through'.

My bet is that the Carriers are vulnerable, that Russia and China don't really have the ability to project much outside their nations (though Taiwan and HK are close), that the Americans will move around the world with impunity in a hot situation, except right in the vicinity of Russia/China where it would be a mess because they are both smart nations with 'good enough' gear, and China has a zillion bodies to throw at any problem.

This has likely a lot to do with a wave of 'new' experiences in tech that possibly required a whimsical and specific curiosity, and of course a degree of 'nativism'.

When someone said something about 'digital natives' - I think he had a point. I'm 'not quite digital native' and I've never liked FB, or anything 'social media'. I think that kind of disqualifies me for such work.

Instagram, FB, Snapchat, Kik - these are as much 'social' as they are 'tech' - they are more like media shops than tech shops in many ways (or were).

So for the same reason MTV etc. (ha ha, dated reference!) are mostly young and hip, it might make sense that some companies have the same.

There's something to be said for 'doing things in a new way'.

Now, as many have noticed "there's nothing new under the sun" for the most part, and as the heady bubble bursts a little bit, I'm hoping that things become normative.

I started my career in the Valley, in Telecom, surrounded by 35-50 year old people, so brilliant, so experienced, I could barely keep up and I felt 'junior' on a daily basis.

Contrast that with my 'dot com' SF friends who were 27 and the 'oldest, most senior' folks at the company.

For the issues that I face in my work, I actually loathe to have to deal with 'fresh grads' because there's so much grindy material in the work, that one needs 'a couple of years' of experience just to be useful. For example, almost anything done in C++ ... there's so many ways to 'do it wrong', it takes some failure and good habits.

I think things will probably change as the materiality of experience becomes evident in some ways and managers catch on to that. I suggest there are probably enough companies around that do value experience.

One issue is however that 'experience' shouldn't be an excuse for complacency, nor should it excuse bad habits, not does it mean 'massive dollars' at every job. The pay scale probably starts to plateau at 5 years, maybe inching incrementally after that.

Documentation might be the most overlooked aspect of technology.

Every time a user has to ask a simple question and they have access to the docs, I see it as a 'product fail'.

As a resident, yes this is pretty much it.

For an American firm especially, it's just a odd little place with everything in a different language, it's just not worth the hassle for lawyers and risk, so they just skip it.

"U.S. abuses and provocations, (Iran?)," - this is a two sided coin.

Something that differentiates Slack from other apps, is that there should never be any need to manage data across corporate clusters.

Instead of a massive, complicated back-end, imagine if each Slack 'installation' (i.e. customer) had their own set of services, distinct from one another.

Even with 10K users each for the larger customer accounts, I'd imagine that 'customer backend' might not have be super complicated.

i.e. I wonder if there's an opportunity for systems such as these to 'scale horizontally' instead of vertically, whereby each customer has their own little set of services.

In this manner 'managing billions of messages' wouldn't seem so daunting, rather, no more daunting that some 3rd party running several thousand MS Outlook instances, one for each customer.

The newer cinemas are too much like a grotesque plastic theme park. Buzzling lights, games, fast food.

They are like 'Chucky Cheeze'.

No thanks.

How about nice, quaint theatre? Maybe a coffee shop out front. Popcorn, soda, candy, beer/wine in respectable containers.

And somewhat reduced price on the entry.

$25/head is just not worth the outing.

What 'Virginia wants' is almost irrelevant.

"Virginia tried very hard to make sure that HQ2 is not just more government contracting jobs"

Virginia can think whatever they want, but Amazon will do what it wants to do.

The objective is not 'contracting jobs' - that's not Amazon's business. The objective is to deeply entrench AWS services and products into government.

The amount of money - and especially the incumbency - provided to the winner of 'gov cloud' will be gigantic.

Defence and civie agencies spent $6.5B on cloud services in 2018, up 35% (!) from the year before, that's an incredible growth rate. [1]

This is going to grow like wild for some time, and that's Amazon's objective.

The lobbying/relationship efforts will be important as well.

Virginia is just the local government, they are actually not hugely part of the equation other than the specific incentives as you point out. Even the 'investment in education' is not hugely sweet for businesses, as the majority of workers won't come from Virginia anyhow.

The best thing Virginia can do is 'be a good government' - make sure the infrastructure, healthcare, schools etc. are well managed.

[1] https://www.nextgov.com/it-modernization/2018/09/federal-clo...

The #1 criteria is DC.

The government is 25% of the economy, and it's just starting in the cloud.

The amount of money the US Gov. is going to spend on AWS will be jaw dropping.

It will trickle down into states, cities, and other governments like Canada.

And of course the deeply entrenched lobbying power.

There's nothing here to indicate which parts were relevant or mattered to Amazon's decision.

Big Gov is just starting in the cloud, and Amazon wants the biggest piece of that gadzillion dollars. I can see a private wing of AWS running most of the military, for example.

They use wallets, paper money just like the rest of us. Though there's a recent phenom of 'cashless', cash is still normative, moreover, this is a very recent thing.

A 'wallet' in China is the the same thing as a 'wallet' in the USA or Sweden.

That's a great point.

A grocery list and a business card is hardly 'a wallet'.

Even with $13 ... that's still 'a wallet with some lose change'.

Without credit cards, id, or some some real money, i.e. 'meaningful to the person who lost it', it's an odd measure.

When dealing in such embedded systems, there's often not a whole lot of help online for arcane issues. Device documentation etc. usually makes default assumptions about C/C++. Drivers, other tools - same. This is usually a big concern.

If there isn't much software involved, then the natural choice would be that which most easily integrates with the platform, because at that level, there's always trouble.

Given limited information, I probably would have chosen C/C++, and then done some experiments with Rust to see if it was worthwhile, and then possibly port over during an appropriate iteration.

It would be nice if some details could be given about the project so we could put 'performance' etc. into context.

There are not that many applications that really need the extra performance boost from the JVM to C++, usually, that would be a platform issue, i.e. the device can't support the JVM or whatever.

For smaller projects (we're dealing with sensors, does this mean it's small?) especially hardware related, the issues are going to be integration, libraries, supportability for those tricky things; in such scenarios one's hand is often pushed to C etc..

The advantages of Rust it would seem would have to be rather significant and noteworthy to make the jump to a nonstandard platform, for so many reasons.

I didn't miss your point, I disagree with it.

I believe people in China understand very well what paper money is and means, in roughly/ballpark the same terms as Americans.

I could be wrong.

The Chinese invented paper money :) so it's not as though the concept is foreign to any of them. While there might be some differences between cultures in that regard, I think it's kind of a stretch to try to explain away the not very nice data points. I think the data can probably be interpreted in a straight forward manner: if you lose something in China, you're not going to get it back and that's that. It is what it is.

"There's a reason the authors stopped short of making any social commentary in their study." I think because it would be way out of bounds. Casual commenters such as us have a little space to speculate (unless dang gets fussy), but it'd be too improper for researchers to make assumptions.

One major thing missing in this study is the rural/urban divide. I suggest London is not representative in any way of the rest of the UK, and neither is Manchester the same as Penzance.

Edit: I should note that the authors do indeed go into trying to find cultural correlates, they go right for '% protestant' etc. and make some fairly speculative comments which I would be uncomfortable with because these are all just correlations. Notably, one of the highest 'correlations' is 'latitude' (!), it's not as though being at a certain latitude makes one more civic. Maybe there are other, related, factors, but it's certainly not latitude.

I don't know why people are so cynical, the results are generally what I would have imagined.

Most interesting - the $13/$100 difference.

Notice that in the US and UK, the 'return rate' goes way up when there's $100 in the wallet, but when only $13 it's quite low.

In Switzerland and Sweden, it's high even for $13.

I think there might be a difference between 'core conscientiousness' and 'meaningful conscientiousness'.

In Sweden and Switzerland, it's a matter of propriety to 'return the wallet'. It's appropriate behaviour. They have smaller, tighter communities, you may even know the person. So they 'just do the right thing' because it doesn't matter what's in the wallet.

In the US/UK culture the thinking might be $13 - nobody is care, it's not worth the hassle to report. But as soon as there's money, then it becomes a material matter of conscientiousness, i.e. 'people will miss $100, it's worth the effort to report it'.

I think $13 is just not really enough money, not that much different from $0. It's almost change.

$100 is a nice, meaningful threshold.

Finally, China ... ouch.

Also, the results are perfectly correlated with transparency international index [1]

It's interesting because it may be that 'corruption' is not just a systematic issue in governance, but it may be correlated or predicted with even more basic levels of civic conscientiousness, as measured by tests such as this.

[1] https://www.transparency.org/cpi2018

Yes, I agree with all of that.

But that kind of change is very rare. China has done more economic growth in 30 years than any nation in history.

I don't see India or Vietnam moving that quickly in any direction.

Vietnam does not have the scale or institutions, India has all sorts of problems.

China declared Shenzhen to be a global city for this and they 'made it happen'. I'm not sure if there are going to be other candidates.

But in the end, it's diffusive and I agree with you, maybe some countries are able to carve out niches.

Maybe India beats China to chip fabs or something, due to their competitive position in adjacent things like software, and their relationship with American companies on that front, and the fact it may not take 'a national directive' to do it.

Corruption, corporate messaging lies, political lies etc..

Corruption in UK is about the same as Germany.

UK is super deferential and not candid, i.e. 'it's not polite to point out ugly things', but this might be perceived as duplicitous in 'candid' countries.

An English person might say 'that's interesting' instead of saying 'it's shit', to be polite.

But in terms of how it breaks into level of civility, it's just the same really. 'Transparency International' ranks them the same in terms of corruption.

So I think it's more a matter of immediate, interpersonal communication than anything.