7,435 karma · joined July 22, 2012
So if you get a job at Blue Origin with the expectations that is going to feel like working for a cozy, cultural-heavy, trendy startup, you probably should re-caliber the way you set your expectations.
I believe influenza was very vulnerable to this change of behavior given its seasonal nature, shorter incubation period and generally weaker virality.
Many parents will keep raising theirs kids with undiscriminate access to smartphones. Just because you have it under control in your household, doesn't mean everyone does.
You're basically saying: "Not my kids, not my problem".... and that's the position many will take.
I'm not convinced IG for Kids is the right solution, but it is at least an intentional move towards fixing the foundation of the problem. It will take more than that, though. It's probably a problem that needs to be fixed by forcing big tech companies to cooperate, something that it's unlikely to happen in an era where those companies enjoy antagonizing each other.
If you get 1000 users to go through a particular flow and you have a way to collect failure signals from production accurately and in real time, then you can just dial down that flag to 0% if you see a lot of production errors.
I'm still not convinced that you can't drop e2e testing completely but maybe if your business allows it you can confidently rely of unit testing or testing contracts without having to run the app through all the user flows for every change.
Just look back at any S-1 post and there's always somebody who shares it. Why? Do they really think they are illuminating someone else with the most boiler-plate phrase in the existence of S-1 filings?
The average consumer doesn't know that Intuit has a gross business model that is entirely based on the idea of deliberately keeping bureaucracy alive. They think the exact opposite.
They believe Intuit is giving them a solution to deal with the government's outdated and overly-complex tax filing system. And unsurpisingly the government has no issues with being the escape goat on this one, because the way you pay your taxes will never be as politically contentious as determining who gets to pay taxes and how much they pay.
What you’re describing doesn’t work with E2E encryption. I really doubt it works that way.
Bold of them to assume that Apple will follow their own guidelines if they are detrimental to their product strategy.
Objectively speaking, these are guidelines, so they are not enforceable the same way App Store rules are. But there's also a lot to say about the differences between Apple as a platform and a Apple as a product.
I think Apple has never even remotely consider the idea of setting the sames rules for their third-party ecosystem and their own products. They have build billionaire business lines on the sole idea of products that integrate better with MacOS and iOS (Safari, Maps, Mail, etc) Anyone who uses an Apple product knows this. So I think is pointless to call them out on that. This has been Apple's playbook for the last 20 years and it will be for years to come unless regulation catches up to them. Time will tell.
Given how much shit they get from Wall Street due to their super weak user growth, I’m suprised they didn’t do this long ago.
Although I believe there is creative merit in composing an clothing outfit I don't believe that merit is even remotely close to things such as designing the actual clothes or creating the drawings and art that goes into the clothes or designing the stores in which these clothes are sold...
So I stand by my original statement. I do believe an algorithmic stylist for the avergage person can be vastly superior than a human stylist, because the inputs that the former takes are not that different than the inputs of the latter. Furthermore, the reasoning is essentially the same:
People want good fitted clothes, that are in fashion and that go in accordance to what they like. I don't think there's a lot of room for creativity here. I'm sorry that it sounds like a machine-learning nihilist take, but in practice I don't believe there's a good match between what people want from something like Stitch Fix and what a human stylist can do for them.
I dooubt that someone who relates to clothing in an artistic way would ever use something like Stitch Fix, so my assumption is that for the average Stitch Fix user, an algorithmic stylist could give them the same desired output at a better cost.
That's exactly the same thing a human stylist would do + making sure the outfit pieces look good together (Which I assume the algorithm is also trained to do).
As much as I want to believe that a human in the end would do a better job, I think an algorithm is capable of becoming a more accurate and dynamic stylist than a human.
Unless you want to be a trend-setter or do some artistic expression through your clothing. In those cases a human stylist does make sense. But for the regular Joe, I think a well trained algorithm can perform better than a human.
Even if the numbers analyzed are inflation adjusted, the article doesn't explain in what proportion are those prices higher than in the 2000s. If a house value was 60% up before the bubble bursted and then house values crashed 60% you have a baseline which is the deflated prices after the burst.
Not saying that SEC doesn't have sophisticated tools but I think in most cases they don't need that. Their power lies in their regulatory ability to collect personal information of who trades, when and how much.
Lol, I don't think there's a lot of sophistication in this. They want to make it sound like some sort of powerful magic box they have that can find anyone doing something dubious when in reality this is probably a very simple interesection between two datasets:
The one that contains all the people who yielded profits over X amount when trading the stock of a Y company during a timeframe, and another dataset that contains all the current and former employees of that Y company.
That's the thing about insider trading. People who do it are just complete idiots. They think that they can leverage some assymetry of information when in reality there's no such thing. If you trade the stock of your current or former employer (especially before earnings calls) and yield unrealistic gains you're going to get flagged and someone is going to manually review your shit.
A provider routing middleware with the goal of increasing authorization rates is likely not even an attractive business in markets like the US and Europe where you probably can defer to a single payment provider like Stripe for maximum checkout reliability.
This is not the case in Latam. Authorization rates are way lower and anti-fraud heuristics and models by local payment providers are less sophisticated. Most growing business in Latam end up in a situation where they neeed to re-route payments to increase their authorization rates and sometimes in the need to build very strict checkouts that harm conversions but that are needed to avoid a high volume of rejected transactions.
Of course this is going to spark concern within their own ranks. It's like working for a food company that claims to use organic, non-processed, fair-trade ingredients and in just a day deciding that you're going to switch to industrial farming sourcing and ultra-processed ingredients.
It's a complete change of narrative and there's no easy way to explain it and still defend Apple's Privacy narrative, wihout doing extreme mental gymnastics.
Even the CMA's statement is focusing solely on competition concerns.
I'm not dismissing any other potential concerns that may arise from this, but I fail to see how this isn't just a case of "FB bad so let's fuck with FB".
Someone already mentioned it here, but why didn't Google's acquisition of Tenor received similar scrutiny? Just to be clear, I'm not arguing in favor of FB or anyone. My argument is against governments disrupting free market through unfalsifiable hypotheses of how an acquisition is gonna unwind and impact the competive landscape.
In this particular case it's clear to me that financial reasoning is needed to force the reversal of an acquisition.
In this case this sets precedent that no other social media operation can buy Giphy. Who else could buy it and somehow make it work as a losing money asset in that case?
This is essentially the government saying: "you have to sell this back to someone but you cannot sell it to other social media companies, so you probably have to sell it for pennies to some private equity or shut it down". In what free market economy does that make sense at all?
Luckily FB can afford to lose 400MM, but what a horrible precedent this sets for the M&A activity in the tech industry.
So just because there’s nobody between me and my skip I got promoted? That’s the most dumb rationale I have ever read.
This guy was already the head of a prominent Alphabet division. If you move him around the executive structure he could have ended up one or two skips below the CEO without that meaning absolute shit .
At that level of organizational hierarchy that’s far from a promotion. He is now the VP of some random AI program that’s way more obtuse and irrelevant than DeepMind.
The only clear public signal of a promotion at executive levels is being a VP and becoming a Chief or a SVP. That’s it. At companies like Google and Facebook changing titles doesn't mean that you got promoted. A promotion is going from one level to the next one. This guys was probably an L10 and is still an L10.
Blows my mind that they arrived to this conclusion based on such a weak signal.
Again, this is a very general appreciation but it's likely the case for most athletes. In the Olympics you already know before hand who is a favorite and who is an underdog. Of course the athletes are self-aware enough to understand this as well.
I mean. This looks alright and it will certainly make any UI look pretty decent, but the execution is not superb like the actual TailwindUI library which is incredibly well thought from a visual design perspective. Those components are perhaps less shiny than these but they are incredibly functional and way more intentional.
This is a good effort though and I hope to see it improving.
I wonder why something like CK can benefit so drastically from TV Ads while others are not even close to breaking even on that investment.
Is it the quality of the ads or the nature of the product?