traek

There’s a big difference between Google making data available to the Chinese government, which is what Dragonfly would do, and Google making their expertise at cataloguing and searching information available to the Chinese government, which has not been reported.

The only information that the Chinese government would have access to from Google is info they already have from Baidu.

Source? From my read it looks like you absolutely can.

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmc052709

> Facebook puts a tax on being human, on trying to exist outside of a social vacuum.

I don't know what "trying to exist outside of a social vacuum" means. I also don't know what type of "tax" Facebook puts on being human that isn't levied--to at least some extent--by every other technological advance (telegraph, phone, internet, email, SMS...)

You can choose 3-4 sources you personally trust, subscribe to them, follow them on Twitter, and get essentially the product you described. You can even follow specific feeds (eg Bloomberg Politics instead of Bloomberg) to make it more tailored.

I'm seeing a valid cert issued to Google.

> This would be greatly concerning because Eastern Asians from Flushing are already moving west towards Manhattan and are already encroaching on Hispanic minorities in Elmhurst and Corona.

Why is it better for Hispanic people to live in an area than Eastern Asian people?

Because tourists tend to impose negative externalities upon the city (like getting drunk and throwing up in the streets), and long-term residents tend to impose positive externalities (like planting flowerboxes at their windows).

Also because residents pay for public services via taxes, and tourists staying in illegal Airbnbs don't even pay hotel taxes.

Also because residents, not tourists, vote.

> Greyhound didn’t innovate. The buses look like they are super old. No wifi. Exorbitant prices. It’s a terrible experience. Pay a bit more and you can take a train.

I don't think this is salient to the discussion specifically of Greyhound shuttering service in rural Canada. There are no train lines that operate connecting most of the outposts described in the article to urban areas.

That discussion is on Dopamine the startup, not the framework from Google.

Google's framework is at https://github.com/google/dopamine and I don't believe it's generated discussion on HN before.

Some of the things look like they've already been upstreamed (cgroups2). Tejun Heo, the author of this announcement, is a Linux kernel developer.

Facebook hired the principal developer of BRTFS, Chris Mason, to work on it full-time.

Edit: it looks like a lot of the projects have already been open-sourced but were developed at Facebook (e.g. PSI and cgroups2), and Facebook is now announcing them all together along with some new tools.

> Across the breadth range of companies built on advertising from coca cola to chanel as far as I can see they don't use internet ads.

"Coca-Cola has just hired its first chief digital marketing officer" (2016) https://www.thedrum.com/news/2016/12/12/coca-cola-has-just-h...

"Chanel has been investing in other areas of digital, boasting more display and video ad impressions in the past year than almost any other brand in the study." https://www.l2inc.com/daily-insights/chanel-flaunts-digital-...

No, they were still incorrect for "people watching videos for 3 seconds or more." For that to be correct, the total view time (numerator in the figure in the article) would have to be view time only for those users who watched >3 seconds.

Brand awareness campaigns are measured (and billed) by impressions, not by "average length of video viewed," which was the metric that Facebook lied about.

Inaccurate, the misreported metrics didn't impact billing[0].

[0] https://www.businessinsider.com/facebook-exaggerating-view-c...

> Most smaller countries cannot use the same method.

Sure, but America can, so why shouldn’t it?

> It is clear that information operations and coordinated inauthentic behavior will not cease.

Interesting to see them use the phrase "coordinated inauthentic behavior", which was invented by Facebook to talk about their site integrity problem. I wonder how much collaboration exists between their integrity teams.

Prefixes, not cognates.

Multipliers are on earnings, not revenue. A “modest 5x multiplier” on Walmart’s revenue would give them a valuation of $2.5 trillion.

Brian advocated a particular business model for monetizing WhatsApp:

> For his part, Acton had proposed monetizing WhatsApp through a metered-user model, charging, say, a tenth of a penny after a certain large number of free messages were used up. “You build it once, it runs everywhere in every country,” Acton says. “You don’t need a sophisticated sales force. It’s a very simple business.” [0]

David is saying that Brian, though advocating for this model and against the alternative of monetizing data, didn't put in any effort to demonstrate this model was workable:

> During this time, it became pretty clear that while advocating for business messaging, and being given the opportunity to build and deliver on that promise, Brian actively slow-played the execution, and never truly went for it. In my view, if you’re passionate about a certain path — in this case, letting businesses message people and charging for it — and if you have internal questions about it, then work hard to prove that your approach has legs and demonstrate the value. [1]

[0] https://www.forbes.com/sites/parmyolson/2018/09/26/exclusive...

[1] https://www.facebook.com/notes/david-marcus/the-other-side-o...

I'd call Bret Taylor a product genius.

Snapchat has had video calling for a lot longer than IG.

> As an aside: it was interesting when the stock cratered last year to the point where the market cap of the company was lower than its annual revenue -- all the revenue in the world doesn't make up for negative margins.

Yup, revenue doesn’t really mean anything; Walmart’s market cap is less than their 2017 revenue.

Pithy but insubstantive.

> the court found for the plaintiff on a technicality, but they upheld the principle that disparate impact could be sufficient to support a claim.

No, they didn't. The majority opinion did conclude that disparate impact is cognizable under ADEA, but it specifically addressed whether it would apply to the claim in that case and found that it wouldn't. There was a technicality (no relevant practice identified) but the court went further than that.

> Turning to the case before us, we initially note that petitioners have done little more than point out that the pay plan at issue is relatively less generous to older workers than to younger workers. They have not identified any specific test, requirement, or practice within the pay plan that has an adverse impact on older workers. As we held in Wards Cove, it is not enough to simply allege that there is a disparate impact on workers, or point to a generalized policy that leads to such an impact. Rather, the employee is “ ‘responsible for isolating and identifying the specific employment practices that are allegedly responsible for any observed statistical disparities.’ ” 490 U.S., at 656 (emphasis added) (quoting Watson, 487 U.S., at 994). Petitioners have failed to do so. Their failure to identify the specific practice being challenged is the sort of omission that could “result in employers being potentially liable for ‘the myriad of innocent causes that may lead to statistical imbalances … .’ ” 490 U.S., at 657. In this case not only did petitioners thus err by failing to identify the relevant practice, but it is also clear from the record that the City’s plan was based on reasonable factors other than age.

> [...]

> Thus, the disparate impact is attributable to the City’s decision to give raises based on seniority and position. Reliance on seniority and rank is unquestionably reasonable given the City’s goal of raising employees’ salaries to match those in surrounding communities. In sum, we hold that the City’s decision to grant a larger raise to lower echelon employees for the purpose of bringing salaries in line with that of surrounding police forces was a decision based on a “reasonable factor other than age” that responded to the City’s legitimate goal of retaining police officers. Cf. MacPherson v. University of Montevallo, 922 F.2d 766, 772 (CA11 1991).

> While there may have been other reasonable ways for the City to achieve its goals, the one selected was not unreasonable. Unlike the business necessity test, which asks whether there are other ways for the employer to achieve its goals that do not result in a disparate impact on a protected class, the reasonableness inquiry includes no such requirement.

> Accordingly, while we do not agree with the Court of Appeals’ holding that that the disparate-impact theory of recovery is never available under the ADEA, we affirm its judgment.

The opinion is very approachable, I genuinely encourage you to try reading it.[0] I don't know where you're getting your facts from but they're objectively inaccurate.

> That's very hypocritical of you.

You're right, I'm sorry for that.

[0] https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1160.ZO.html

> As I said earlier, it's possible to use salary etc. in good faith, but it's risky

No you didn't, you said "The short answer is that it's generally [not] legal to consider salary demands [...] in the context of firing or laying people off."

> disparate impact alone carried the day in Smith v. City of Jackson.

Disparate impact absolutely did not "carry the day" in Smith v. Jackson, SCOTUS ruled against the plaintiffs. It ruled that disparate impact can be applied to ADEA, but with a much narrower interpretation than with Title VII. Specifically, they carved out very broad exemptions for "reasonable factors", which would in most cases include salary.

In fact, even in that very case "reasonable factors" included salary! SCOTUS ruled unanimously in favor of the employer--specifically ruling that seniority/pay grade IS a reasonable factor.

Try reading the analysis of the case (or even the actual opinion, or maybe even just learning to read) before being so patronizing.

The courts have ruled that employers don’t have to defend disparate impact based on a “business necessity,” the normal defense to a disparate impact case, which is a high bar to clear. See the Smith v. Jackson ruling, which clarified that in an age discrimination disparate case, the defendant must only show “reasonable factors other than age,” and NOT business necessity. RFOA is a much lower bar. Given a genuine lack of intent to discriminate based on age, any competent lawyer would be able to argue that salary is a RFOA.

You, meanwhile, have cited nothing.

Do you know what the ADEA and ERISA are?

ADEA (Age Discrimination in Employment Act) is the law that relates to age discrimination. The Supreme Court ruled that it is not de facto illegal to consider pensions, or other things that are correlated with age (such as salary), as long as the intent was not to discriminate based upon age.

ERISA (Employee Retirement Income Security Act) is a law that narrowly deals with pensions. It does not address age discrimination more generally.

Your statement that "[it's generally not legal] to consider salary demands ... in the context of firing or laying people off" is factually inaccurate.

> Moreover, museums don't allow the donors to curate the exhibitions, and artists do not mention their patrons in their work.

Portrait of Lorenzo de' Medici, Duke of Urbino (1492-1519). Raphael

https://www.christies.com/lotfinder/Lot/raffaello-sanzio-cal...

> The short answer is that it's generally legal to consider salary demands in a hiring situation, but not in the context of firing or laying people off.

This is just plainly untrue. See Hazen Paper Co. v. Biggins.