tajano

I like this about it. He adds a banal, trivial, perhaps non-sensical comment that satirizes the emptiness and one-sidedness of communication on today's most popular social platform. And the timing was perfect.

I suppose there are a limited number of examples of big companies with declining market share that successfully turn the ship around, but a few notable examples come to mind. Shareholders can always sell if they don't want to go along for the ride.

I don't necessarily agree with their decision to omit CCC-TV, and I think it's a bit silly that they did so. But it doesn't matter: it's their right to do so, and I don't get to force my will on them just because I disagree or think they're being irrational.

I'm glad people are critical of Apple's decision, but not when they claim it's a violation of freedom of speech, or when they falsely equate it to government censorship. I can't support a gross misunderstanding of law, government, or the Constitution that's being invoked, even if we want the same end result.

On the other hand, it cost me $60/night versus the $250+/night charged by local 3-star hotels.

This is written as if men don't do exactly the same thing --and in my experience they do. Even among my close group of friends, the competition and "playful" undermining is non-stop and often exhausting.

"[Women] express indirect aggression toward other women, and that aggression is a combination of “self-promotion,” making themselves look more attractive, and “derogation of rivals,” being catty about other women."

So for the exact same reasons as men, though men wouldn't normally be described as "catty." Catty means being subtly or indirectly cruel, and though men will act this way, it seems infrequent, perhaps they are more directly combative, or they do it in a more joking way. In any case, it seems that men are equally competitive, for largely the same reasons, though they may express themselves slightly differently.

Freedom of speech does not mean you are granted unmitigated control over the content a private medium, channel, or platform. For example, it doesn't imply that I can force the New York Times to publish this comment in their newspaper, nor can I force NBC to read this comment aloud on the nightly news. Similarly, I cannot force Apple to publish my content on their platform. In no way does this violate of my freedom of speech.

But 4K employees, 2K engineers to support Twitter? If they were still in a rapid growth/innovation phase, perhaps they could get away with this. But rapid growth is over.

I've frequently heard this theory, that Twitter's problem is that it's too complicated. I don't buy it. It has a simpler UI than Facebook or Snapchat, and it's not significantly more complicated than Instagram or Vine or Periscope or any other media sharing platform.

If you personally enjoy Twitter and derive value from it, it's easy to believe that people who don't get into Twitter just don't understand it it. My experience is that many people sign up, send their first tweet, and then say, "OK, I get it, and I have no use for this." I've helped my friends follow news sources and celebrities they like, but then they look at the wall of Tweets and say, "OK, I get it, but I don't want to read things in this format." It's not about ease-of-use for them, it's about the basic value proposition of tweeting and the Twitter feed.

This immediately struck me as preposterous, as I'm familiar with the local Arizona economy.

Then I saw that number is based on a sample size of 3 survey respondents. When your sample size is so small that the results are statistically meaningless, why even bother making such a claim?

But they're burning through $130M+ a quarter and growth is stalling. They don't seem to have leadership with a vision of where to take the company from here.

Twitter still enjoys some cache with celebrities, but how much longer will that hold true?

So how will they stop bleeding? Maybe they'll transform Twitter into something profitable, or maybe they'll look to the 2,000+ engineers, and ask why they need so many.

2k+ engineers on staff without notable improvements to the core user-facing product in a while.

Declining signups, declining engagement.

Nobody stepping into the permanent CEO role.

I don't see how this ends well.

Lots in Boston, too.

Can you enumerate Twitter's products?

Perhaps Instagram is a closer comparison -- broadcast photos instead of broadcast 140 characters. And you have a much smaller engineering team, much faster growth, twice as many active users, and far fewer fail whales.

Regardless of the comparisons, 2,000 engineers seems excessive in proportion to Twitter's product, which suggests engineering inefficiency.

For me, Facebook offered a false sense of being social. The more I used it, the more I craved social interaction, leading me to use it even more. It's possible, maybe even likely, that I was "using it wrong." But after I used Facebook's tool for dealing with this problem (the Delete Account tool), I've become a more genuinely social person.

I do miss out on photos posted by my extended family. That is a genuine loss. I've probably also missed out on some events organized through Facebook. But then again, I'm making more of an effort to actively maintain relationships offline, and it's probably been a net positive.

Of course, that's just my experience. There are 1.5B active users who might disagree.

Because they're lecturing about engineering efficiency, yet they require 2,000 engineers to support their product. By comparison, WhatsApp scaled to 3X as many active users with a engineering team 1/40th the size. Instagram also runs circles around them in this respect.

For a team so huge and so productive, where is the output? More productivity tools? Maybe Twitter should pivot into that space.

Almost every founder, engineer, Stanford grad, and VC has been chanting "We're changing the world!" for the last eight years. Stop it. It's trite and annoying and it pisses people off. It doesn't piss people off because your current batch of products are half-baked and stupid. It pisses people off because your very best products of the last decade are, at the end of the day, stupid and trivial and really haven't changed the world in a very positive way. It pisses people off because it doesn't hold water outside the myopic Silicon Valley bubble, where everyone tells each other "We're changing the world" often enough that they actually buy into it.

I'm just starting to integrate Redux (and possibly Immutable) into my app, and initially I'm a bit surprised by how Redux can make simple things much more complex. I'm hoping it will pay off by end up simplifying complex things down the road.

In any case, it feels like we're currently at the "peak of inflated expectations" with respect to React and Flux/Redux.

But it's offensive marketing because these companies haven't even bothered to frame the issue in terms of solving people's real-world problems. You want to sell an overpriced thermostat or smoke detector? Fine, but don't tell me it's a revolution.

A lot of smaller players are getting swept up in the hype, and wasting time and money thinking consumers will jump at the opportunity to pay 10X the price for something that interacts with their phone. Prove me wrong, but I'm not buying it.

I make a low six figure income and live in a one bedroom apartment. I don't drive a luxury car, or take vacations, or have many indulgences except eating out one or two nights a week. I also don't have much money left over to save or invest. I don't see home ownership in my future, or much improvement in my standard of living. I'm getting older, but the idea of paying for a wedding, or the cost of raising a child, or the cost of sending them to college scares the hell out of me.

This is probably due, mostly, to living in an area with a high cost of living. There are perks to living in a nice city -- my girlfriend shudders at the thought of moving to the suburbs -- but the city bleeds us dry. It's exciting to live in a technology hub, but the higher salary seems to be mostly an illusion.

My point being, I wonder how quickly everything will adjust to swallow up that basic income? Then again, I guess it's not really aimed at present-day me, but rather at someone with a lower income for whom its utility will be much greater.

On the other hand, CofeeScript may have spurred many of the sweeping changes in ECMAScript 6 & 7.

On the other hand, are JavaScript classes actually a step backwards? Go doesn't have classes.

On the other hand, Go is an abomination.

Consider not getting a raise in five years. With inflation and (in most technology hubs) a skyrocketing rising cost of living, your company is effectively paying you less every year you work for them.

It doesn't make you a primadonna to question this premise -- it just means you're not a sucker. If you're in a career/company where your value goes down with every year of experience you get, it forces you question a lot of your life decisions.