wintom

What exactly happened after the U.S. severed ties with Cuba? You make it sound like we lost something.

They are still stuck in the 1960s, their economy is absolute garbage and the people are dirt poor, they lost multiple generations of opportunity.

Have you been to Cuba? It’s like going back in time 70 years.. the country itself is beautiful if they had taken a different path they could be incredibly propsorous. A small country like Cuba could get by on tourism alone and do much better than they do now.

Everyone needs to take their own path, if suppressing people’s religions and no freedom is that path the Chinese want to take then that’s their choice.

Our government and our corporations should not support that.

Absolutely not true. There is plenty of evidence time and time again from the top firms in this country try.

Aviation and top R&D being stolen from Boeing, just in general corporate espionage is rampant just Google it. The kicking out of top tech firms, why is Google not there in China? Why is that fair? China does not play by any rules and therefore they can’t be allowed to play with us.

The purposeful devaluation of their currency, why is that fair?

I could go on and on. I assure you I’m not a Nazi and I really dislike that part of Trumps campaign but man he is so right on this one.

Copying isn’t cheating but they have spies in the top tech firms in this country. Everywhere in the world that’s cheating. Stealing confidential proprietary anything anywhere in the modern world will send you to jail, whose sending China to jail?

Donald Trump and your mad about it.

I am reading a lot of comments like this.

Guys, so what? You think middle America gives a shit your high tech biz is getting hit?

The fact that everyone is building all of this out of China is a terrible sign. The fact that China has grown incredibly quickly by cheating is also terrible. They are number two not because they truly invented, fairly competed, or did anything useful for humanity. They stole all sorts of trade secrets, they continue to do that, didn’t license anything, pushed all of our companies out etc..

I didn’t vote for Trump, but listen to yourselves.

I might vote for Trump on the next one because I really do agree with him on this.

EDIT: downvote me it’s ok, it does not change the fact that you are out of touch and not really looking to hear the other side at all.

EDIT, EDIT: Keep down voting me guys, calling me a racist but it does not change the fact that you aren’t looking to have a dialogue about this.

I know your not trying to troll, statements of disbelief are very common about companies that are about to own an entire market with no real competition in sight. No one sees it yet but these guys are about to own office space and how that is acquired in the future, whose going to stop them? They are creating a future you don’t yet see.

People couldn’t believe Uber was worth more than Delta airlines in one of their valuation rounds.. this is very common. They were about to own the taxi industry and take a cut out of every ride.

This is so much bigger than that.

During world war 2, fan favorite companies like Mercedez Benz were building tanks for the Nazis. If there is a war today don’t you think the government will seize everything and we will all be working for them? This is different in some ways because Google is likely being paid for this but I don’t think they can just refuse nor do I think they should be able to, frankly. That’s not how national security works.

And just because employees at Google refuse, employees in one of the big Chinese firms won’t be able to. If our government does not have this tech then someone else will.

We live in this fantasy, like people aren’t dying everyday from war in so many places around the world. We are not immune to that.

Edit: to all the folks down voting me it’s a good idea to get a different perspective sometimes.

It’s not meaningless. Saying Blockchain is meaningless is like saying the web is meaningless or the internet is meaningless. Just because you either don’t understand it or you feel it’s too broad does not make it meaningless.

Blockchain is a distributed ledger that guarantees consensus without any central party. It has many other properties, like making the transactions public in most cases, and many other important things that are different from centralized databases and non public databases we have been using for the last 30 years.

Mining this stuff is a funny thing, that is a devisive feature even in the crypto space.

That being said, this isn’t the first time where mining has plummeted in profitability. Early last year similar articles started popping up and in fact GPUs on eBay we’re being sold at dirt cheap prices because crypto was “plummeting”.

I wouldn’t bet on crypto going anywhere, not in this crazy world we live in.

The real issue with all the pump and dump, fear of missing out, and all the other crazy “mooning” is that it is ruining this whole space. It is creating a reality that all the haters of cryptocurrency have been talking about for a while.

Instead of focusing on building real applications with blockchain, programmable money, and changing the world everyone is focused on trading and get rich quick schemes. This stuff could change the world it is money ripped out of government hands and it could be baked into everything we do on the internet but I am not so sure that will happen anytime soon anymore.

I am very jaded with the whole space because of all this fraud.

Sounds like maybe SOME ARM and SOME AMD are implicated, especially since the Android ARM CPUs appear to be fine...

>"A bitcoin is a number, and that number has no utility outside of its ability to be accepted by someone else. Unlike gold, the the minimum value of a bitcoin is zero— its value if everyone stops believing it works. This is one reason why a bitcoin is a risky way to hold assets."

I think people forget that there is a lot of value to a censorship resistant currency.

Before Bitcoin was worth hundreds or thousands of dollars it was being used in the black market at whatever rate it was floating at. That rate is a non zero value. There is no other way, other than another crypto currency, to do business in these black market places.

Now blow that out exponentially to places like China where your money isn't exactly your money. Or places where its ok to seize someones property, depending on whose in power.

This then starts to give you an idea that even when the bubble crashes we will still have Bitcoin.

I like your username, lol.

You are right though and I am being a little sarcastic on purpose. People have argued that Gold has real intrinsic value which it does have its uses but no more or no less than any other important precious metal we use.

Lots of stuff is used in electronics but it is not worth as much as gold.

“Rosenstreich at online trading firm Swissquote said bitcoin’s surge harks to the surprises of the U.K. referendum on European Union membership and President Trump’s election.

“We have underestimated the populist movements,” he said. “There is growing unease on how central banks and governments are managing fiat currencies. Ordinary people globally understand why a decentralized asset is the ultimate safe haven.””

That’s the reason for 10k and it will be the reason for 100k. 100k puts the market at cap at a trillion, it’s not that crazy if you remember that Gold is several times that and other than looking good as jewelry it has no other real intrinsic value. No one likes to talk about that though, they like to demonize bitcoin which actually does something gold could never do. Force trust in a world where you can’t trust anything.

You are 100% right about the folks who use this and many of the folks in the early days.

It is a little lost today in all the bubble conversations, many of the ICO conversations, and people are generally debating what is the value of this stuff.

>Also, it's pretty personal info: in the event that one or more of the ad buyers grouped into the list really was a private citizen with no affiliation to any government, is Facebook in the right to publicize who they are and which ads they purchased?

Shouldn't Facebook be verifying who is real and who isn't? For tax + many and I mean many other reasons... shouldn't they verify exactly who is giving them money?

Secondly for all of the fakes, there is absolutely zero privacy concerns. No fucks given for those that meddled in our election process. They should all be extradited and thrown in our jails.

Martians popping our tires?

In all seriousness its unclear to me how this could happen so quickly? The article does not really explain why they didn't think through this.

The papers are great, a lot of research has been done in this area despite the closed nature of .net prior to the recent open sourcing. Too tough to summarize in one comment but I want to add a few things for anyone thinking of checking them out.

I firmly believe .NET poses a fantastic programming environment for anyone to build systems, applications, the back bone of companies on top of. I think its significantly better than Java and has received much better support form Microsoft than the Java eco system and the JVM has from Oracle.

Functional languages like F# are allowing startups to build systems quickly that can scale from 0 to millions of users and I think this whole eco system, now that its open, is due for a renaissance.

That is a terrible thing and it highlights the wild west that is internet advertising right now.

Much like TV ads, internet ads have to be responsible but there has to be a place for them or dont be surprised when this sort of thing happens.

I know there will be a lot of heat on me fro HN users about ads but here goes anyway:

Ads are pretty bad right now but the reality is that the internet without ads would not be a useful internet. Half of the tools and the things you use all of the time could not exist without ad revenue.

The reverse of this is that Ad Blockers are much worse than the ads. They have become the Mafia of the internet!

Did you know that as a company looking to bypass adblockers you can pay ad blockers to whitelist you? That is extortion money! Google and Facebook pay. The little guys looking to aquire customers now have to pay for the ads by impression and when their ads are blocked have zero chance of showing.

I know you may not care but we are heading down to an internet where the ads are now becoming content and we are basically reading nothing but junk. The junk went from one section of the page to now being the page. Advertising has existed as long as media has and as such will never go away. There is advertising on pay to view channels like cable, companies want to sell to you and they wont just disappear.

Lets stop this, lets get rid of the ad blockers and lets force the advertising companies to be responsible with their technology, not drain our batteries, not sell our personal info and we will have a much better internet.

When everyone screams about security and why we shouldn't be snooped on one of the biggest factors to consider is that inevitably someone who has access to this information will abuse their power.

It's just human nature.

The argument that there can be some process, some security apparatus, or anything in this world to prevent that is just a pipe dream. Someone will abuse their power and ruin someones life that is why no one should have access and that way we are all better off.

In the post you mentioned that

>>"In those tasks training from scratch with this model architecture does not do as well as some other techniques we're researching, but it serves as a baseline."

Can you elaborate a little on that? Is the training the problem or is the model just not good at longer texts?

Lol, Excellent point.

I was going to say, although full stack is pretty loose, it isn't that loose.

Full stack means you can touch front end code, backend code, and you can design a table or two or dump a few things into a NoSql Db for persistance. That's hard but it's not impossible at all.

Your first paragraph about Google having great UX, one button one form.

That was built by engineers not by designers or by UX guys who do "research".

So my argument stands.

The best UI/UX is the type that gets out of your way. That is If there was a way to do away with UI and Ux all together and simply control our machines with thoughts or electrical impulses that would be the best UI and UX there is. Engineers know this that all of that stuff just gets in your way, and if they don't know it they quickly learn it through seeing their users interact with their software.

We don't need a bunch of people standing around doing "research" telling us that.

Listen man the best UI and UX comes from not having the stuff get in your way.

Once could argue that the best UI/UX is UI and UX that gets out of your way, that is UI that is none at all. If we could interface with our machines without UI/UX and through some other means like thoughts or electrical impulses that would be the best UI/UX there is.

And anyway, I'm not arguing against research or against UX, I am arguing against the fact that the article is alluding something not true, that design is the gauge of a high tech companies health. The idea that those researchers are finding out anything that a few engineers can't find and iterate over is nonsense.

My point is today, more than ever, engineers are essential.

Design is not and the article misses that point and is using design as a gauge for a companies health. That's not accurate, anyway that's my opinion.

Also it's not just google and Microsoft. It's every other high tech company being Bourne today. Engineering lead organizations are much more likely to succeed.

I couldn't disagree more sir.

Microsoft just started giving a shit about design with all the flat stuff and clearly it's failing harder than ever. They should focus on engineering and solving hard engineering problems more than ever if they want to survive, not design.

Google does now seem to care about design but its core product still has one input box and button and that's still the main way they make all of their money, and engineers still run that organization. They hired the hipsters when they made their money.

In the end design is not indicative of shit in high tech companies, I think my opinion is valid.

Absolutely.

I don't get it, design is important but not nearly as important as engineering to any organization. All of these hipsters today in our industry doing design seem to think they are the most important, but the truth is they aren't.

I got news for you, Google has one bar and one button and was built by engineers and is the most successful company in the world of software. Facebook had a shit design and UI and became the leading social network. Microsoft never gave a shit about design and did great.

In the end engineers build great high tech organizations and it's especially true and even more important than ever today.

Fuck design, its like icing on the cake. Without a good cake the icing won't make you eat shit. It's not that important what's important is to get a product out, you should learn code it up and see if it's any good worry about hiring the hipsters when you're rolling in the dough.

EDIT: In the end I'm saying I disagree that having designers is a sign of anything in a good software company as the article seems to stipulate.

That is false.

Jet is giving its customers all the commission they would have made, all of the supply chain savings they can get out of not having physical stores, paying with certain credit cards like Costco does, as well as any other savings the technology can squeeze out. They are giving all of that back to the customer.

For the Affiliate portion of their business they are giving jet cash to customers. That is a small portion of their business 15%, they are doing that as a value add for people who pay for the membership.