traek

> Facebook takes a strong moral stand on free speech, but it has a clear blind spot for privacy and public discourse.

I think Facebook expressly does not take a stand for free speech, they've been pretty clear about banning offensive/hateful/sexual content from their platform (to the point of being prudish, e.g. with female nipples).

None of those charts are normalized per capita, so they're essentially just plotting population growth.

I agree with you that greenhouse gas emissions are disproportionately from high-income countries, along with meat consumption, food waste, air travel, and lot of other measures. But those charts aren't a great way to make that point.

Nobody’s getting “the last .1% that can ever be gotten”, so it’s a moot point. Google and Facebook are still growing. There’s always room for more improvements.

They just replied saying they disabled the emails.

People did notice.

http://articles.latimes.com/2013/nov/04/entertainment/la-et-...

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/amazon/10426865/Wife-...

https://www.theguardian.com/books/booksblog/2013/nov/05/mack...

Maybe people would prefer the unstated third option of lower property tax.

Aircraft noise can change after an airport is built. From the article:

> The multibillion-dollar program is changing the way air traffic is managed, moving it from radar to satellite navigation. Proponents say it makes the air traffic system more efficient because it allows planes to fly more direct routes to their destinations.

> But the shift has angered residents, who live in neighborhoods that are below the new flight paths. Residents in Northwest Washington sued the FAA over the changes but lost in court. A suit filed by the state of Maryland is pending.

> McCann was one of those affected. He lived in La Jolla for more than a decade and, other than the occasional stray plane, had not had problems with noise. But that began to change in fall 2016.

That's true, I assumed from your original comment where you said "directly from a company in the primary supply chain of the shoe company" that the shoes were from further up the supply chain, like a factory, rather than further down. My mistake.

Even if the product were from an authorized retailer, I don't see how the shoe company's request to Amazon was illegal. Restraint of trade means that contracts restricting commerce are in some cases unenforceable. It doesn't mean that Amazon is compelled to do business with the reseller if they would rather prioritize their relationship with the shoe company.

The photo caption says that's just the infrastructure team. I'd imagine the product team is much larger given how many features are crammed into Messenger.

Yes but ghost shift goods are counterfeits unless they are free of any logos and other intellectual property. The first sale doctrine doesn’t apply because it was never purchased from the IP owner at any point in the line.

If I have a factory in Bangladesh print some t-shirts with the Nike logo on them, I wouldn’t be able to sell them (at least in the US) because I didn’t get permission from Nike, which owns the rights to their logo. It’s the same thing here. It doesn’t matter if the factory happens to also produce legitimate Nike t-shirts.

What did Amazon do here that was wrong? It sounds like these people bought illegitimate “ghost shift” shoes from a factory and the brand owner correctly shut them down.

That's a T-Mobile feature, not an Apple feature, and you can change your settings to block the calls instead of just ID'ing them.

https://www.t-mobile.com/resources/call-protection

> There was a phone that people complained about reception on that was displaying the current service signal strength using a realistic algorithm.

> Review sites, etc, complained about it compared to other phones despite it being better in actuality.

> A "fix" was issued. That fix was to use the same signal bar algorithm as everyone else. The same review sites/etc were awash with how much better everyone's reception was and gladness the bug had been fixed.

Source?

> They have proved these "conspiracy theories" to be true quite a few times.

Such as?

Facebook has explicitly denied spying on people's conversations. I can't think of any situations where they have flat out lied about something like that, so I'm curious to hear what conspiracy theories they have proven true.

This is why most large tech companies have data engineer roles that are separate from the data science role.

Merchants can store the account holder's name and the card's last 4 digits, which is pretty much all that is needed to correlate transactions.

It's a chicken-and-egg problem. You'd want to be among the last people on the road to adopt a lighter car, because being in a lighter car while other people are still in heavy cars makes it much more likely for you to get killed in the event of a collision.

I wonder if it will take legislation to solve.

It’s not about how many engineers it takes to make a new programming language or runtime.

Facebook has the scale to invest in creating tooling, IDE extensions, core libraries, documentation, training, test frameworks, bindings, etc for a new language that they create. They also have the organizational scale and career development to make it worthwhile for an engineer to learn their proprietary language.

This doesn’t apply to most other companies.

That doesn’t answer what type of media is on the disks.

The first sentence links to that paper. This is presented as a high-level introduction to that and related papers/ideas.

> Also, a good lesson from Facebook: instead of rewriting their PHP codebase, they extended the language by creating the "PHP++" language Hack (along with the HHVM runtime), and incrementally changed their codebase to take advantage of Hack

I agree with most of your comment, but I don’t think this part generalizes. This isn’t feasible for most companies unless you’re operating at Facebook scale.

Possibly more relevant than the 2009 Australian fires are the 2017 California wildfires from last year in the same area, for which this same utility (PG&E) has liability expected to exceed $2.5 billion[0].

[0] https://www.sacbee.com/latest-news/article213580349.html

> 'Bumble' got special access because FB is an investor. (Did OkCupid? Tinder?)

I think you misread the article. Facebook wasn't an investor in Bumble. Badoo was an investor in Bumble along with owning other dating services which were whitelisted. Facebook was also not (that I can find online) an investor in Badoo.

>1. Russian interference in the election and the fact that FB knew about it and did nothing.

"the fact that FB knew about it and did nothing" is unsubstantiated. The person I trust the most on this is Alex Stamos, who actually left Facebook due to tensions over this, and he's gone on record saying there was no obstruction.

> 2. FB running psychological experiments in the newsfeed not only to see if they can make you spend more time there (questionably ok) but also to see if they could affect your mood (definitely not ok).

From 2014. I'd also disagree with running A/B tests to increase time spent being "questionably ok" though.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/jul/02/facebook-...

3. Facebook censoring news in the newsfeed based on political leanings.

I can't find anything online about this? Unless you're talking about filter bubbles, in which case I think that's a reasonable criticism although I think describing it as "censorship" is a huge stretch.

4. FB tracking you even after you log out.

Again, from 2013.

https://www.dailydot.com/news/facebook-shadow-profiles-priva...

5. Zuck lying on capital hill about what he knew and when.

Can't find any news articles about this.

6. FB hiring a pr firm to right negative articles about an investor.

Fair criticism.

> So they just heard about Vine, and decided to deprecate the API the same day?

No? Where are you getting this read from? The documents clearly show them discussing it from a year prior to shutting down Vine's API access, and planning on announcing it publicly ~6 months prior.

I can't find anything from a quick google search on when the API deprecation actually took effect, but assuming the timeline from Exhibit 43 is accurate, Twitter actually had whitelisted access for over 3 months before being shut down.

Not really, they built an actual data compression VPN for users with limited data plans and did traffic analysis on the data that went through that pipe.

> Nothing says evil more than preparing reactive PR to bury your competitors.

Really?

> But being forced to give away half your physical retail space is hardly the same thing as just letting them keep using an API that you provide explicitly for such use.

In this case, Facebook was deprecating the API and declined to provide special whitelist access to a competitor.

And that's different from Baidu in what way?

If it's not worse than the status quo, then it's not a negative impact of bringing Dragonfly to China.

I don't, really.

Sure, cutting-edge intellectual property these days is more complicated and unlikely to be completely and fully understood by a single person. That's a function of the progress of technology.

I don't see how one person, or one country, stealing IP via memorization (the technology of the 1800s) is meaningfully different from someone stealing IP on a USB stick (the technology of today).