> It is currently illegal to build third-party applications once the first party tells you to stop.
No, it is illegal to access the data of a third-party with your own app if that third-party doesn't allow you to do so.
7,928 karma · joined January 13, 2015
No, it is illegal to access the data of a third-party with your own app if that third-party doesn't allow you to do so.
Google is probably the only non-telco who owns significant infrastructure. So other than Google, the only other option for YouTube would have been a telco.
Are you sure you'd want a telco owning YouTube? Can you imagine how awful it would be?
Vimeo is owned by IAC, who then owned AskJeeves, TripAdvisor, HotWire, LendingTree and today owns Tinder, OkCupid, Match.com, The Daily Beast, etc.
You sure you'd want the top video website owned by IAC?
Would you rather have Verizon owning YouTube?
Every single telco has tried to launch their own YT. They launched, and every single one of them failed.
The reason they keep failing is that they are telcos, their core capabilities do not play well with an open, network agnostic, consumer-driven video service. They'll prioritize their own content and their own network (look at Verizon and "Oath").
If you "deleted" YouTube, and both Amazon, Google, Verizon, AT&T launched video services, which ones do you think would succeed? Definitely Google's, maybe Amazon's, definitely not Verizon's or AT&T's.
Google happens to be a "third-party content access monetizing" company that owns infrastructure, not an infrastructure company trying to be a "third-party content access monetizing" company.
Sure, but it happens because of your public image, always with a "big break" or a "breakthrough".
> At least most don't.
Actually, most do. There is almost always the one big break, where you are launched into the public's view. It is a step function.
Pick a number of artists, and look up their career, for most of them you'll easily find their "big break".
> A person can be fired from their non public job for saying something wrong on social media, without having ripped anything
Sure, but that's a different topic. I'm focusing on the public-figure part of it.
> Public figure means their job is to make movies for public consumption, not that they have to suffer any BS paparazzi. There's no inherent tie between one and the other.
Oh, there is, and plenty of it, the relationship between the "fame industry" (magazines, publications, etc.) and the public figures is a symbiotic one.
And the more you rely on the fame industry to fuel your growth, the more you're exposed to its risks. It is a deal with the devil.
There are, however, public figures who simply avoid the fame industry. They are harder to find, and have a harder time succeeding, but they are there (Daniel Day-Lewis, for example).
While Vice largely change its approach after McInnes left, it hasn't removed or addressed the articles from those darker times.
https://www.vice.com/da/article/9bv7qv/the-vice-guide-to-par...
A sneak peak:
Here are some of the types you'll need to invite.
TRANSSEXUAL: Pre-op is good, but post–breast implants, pre–gender reassignment is PERFECTION. All transsexuals are slutty, so don't worry about that. This guest is a very high priority and should be catered to accordingly. Put her first in the queue for cocaine and drinks. Tell her how pretty she is. Touch her a lot.
GUY WHO WILL FUCK TRANSSEXUAL: He is your #2 guy, your party wingman. If the tranny doesn't feel loved, she will leave.
When you live by your public image, you die by your public image. Your rise likely happened in the same way as your downfall.
You can't have your cake and eat it too, you can't reap the benefits of being a public figure but complain about the drawbacks. You're, after all, Caesar's wife.
Zuckerberg is indeed a good old capitalist, but one who doesn't want to be seen as a capitalist, but as a messianic savior.
That's why you create a for-profit company and call it an "Initiative" focused on "advancing human potential and promote equality".
Talking to my friends who work at Apple, FB, Google, Amazon and others, facebookers are the only ones who seem to be willing to defend their leader on a personal level, as if they had a dear friend being attacked.
My other friends couldn't care less if someone criticizes or attacks Bezos, Tim Cook, Sundar and so on.
The only other company I can think that behaves in the same way is Tesla with Musk (well, an Apple with Jobs in the old days), but the key difference is that most Muskians don't seem to work for Tesla, and the folks I know at Tesla aren't actually obsessed with Musk.
In the case of FB, it is the opposite.
Oh, not just modern times. It was the same in Roman times as well, and when concrete was not available (either before, or after the Romans), rocks wood and earth would do the job!
The interesting part that most people don't think about (and is extremely relevant in a MOUT setting) is the pressure shock coming out of a main gun, which can be deadly for up to 200m:
The overpressure from the tank 120-mm cannon can kill a marine found within a 90-degree arc extending from the muzzle of the gun tube out to 200 meters. (Marines MOUT Manual)
When firing it down a narrow, building-lined corridor, the effect can be far longer, and even without the canister shot it would likely be enough to clear a large section of the street.
So the only thing that actually matters is results: how they performed last quarter.
Sure, you could design a multivariate survey to figure out the willingness to pay and so on, but that's pretty complex, so that's why I'm just asking here for personal opinions.
PS: I'm not claiming that the products are not in the same level, or one is better than the other, just that such a comparison is made on a personal consumer basis and is largely subjective.
20%? 40%?
And how much more weight/volume would you be willing to accept for reparability?
PS: Honest, curious question here, not rhetorical.
Doctors have to go through over a decade of accredited education and training to even apply to be a doctor at a hospital. It is a restricted and regulated profession. Software development is nothing of the sort.
> absolutely insulting to someone
Wow, this really sounds like entitlement.
You don't deserve anything. Nobody knows how you developed that "productive software". Did you have help from a friend? did you take 10 years longer than someone else would? Did you copy some of it? Did you work alone and would be useless if you had to interact with others and work as part of a team or project?
Sure, when you're a widely known developer with plenty of real accolade (not emails or tweets), then you can expect to be treated differently.
Until then, don't expect to be treated any differently just because you have some code on github.
I had the same impression, particularly driven by these quotes:
From this day on, I was even more disappointed — both with myself and tech hiring process — rejection, rejection, rejection. It honestly feels as if I am a complete failure and an unhirable candidate. How is this possible — I have received emails from people all over the world, who praise and give me thanks for the work I’ve done on my open-source projects and tutorials (and I say this as humbly as I can); people who see me as an expert on Hackhands; co-workers, friends and acquaintances from meetups, hackathons, conferences who apparently think I am a decent programmer—but I cannot pass a single tech interview. How?
TBH, the author sounds like someone who went to the interviews completely unprepared, believing that just because they have some open-source projects and tutorials, they deserve to be hired.
Nobody deserves anything. Most of my friends who went up for interviews with FAANG (or whatever is the latest acronym) studied and prepared for months even before applying.
Those usually graduated from a mid to top tier school with a marketable degree, and won't have many issues paying the loans.
The ones struggling usually have lower amounts, and got leo-marketability degrees from for-profit or low-tier schools.
http://fortune.com/2015/12/01/student-loan-delinquent/
https://equitablegrowth.org/an-introduction-to-the-geography...
But this doesn't mean that there isn't a problem. There is one, it is massive, and it is bad for society.
This company is:
1) Apple?
2) Google (project Dragonfly)?
By handing over all iCloud data of Chinese users to the Chinese government?
You surely must be jesting!
Or dilute it. The solution to pollution is dilution.
Reality begs to differ.