Post is a total fail at semantics, because the following two statements differ in meaning.
"All x is not y"
"Not all x is y".118 karma · joined April 4, 2013
"All x is not y"
"Not all x is y".Nit, but this is the most difficult sentence I've had to parse all year.
See, there's another company that occasionally releases interesting data analytics: Google.
See: Word frequency over time, Predicting the spread of viruses from searches, etc.
The issue is that Uber is trying to explain motive and behavior at the individual level ("I know something about you!"). This is something that would be a definite no-no for Google. The cheekiness of the language certainly doesn't help either.
>> Bike helmets discourage cycling.
Yes! We should require all CAR drivers to wear helmets. Imagine how less likely drivers are to engage in road rage when they're wearing dorky helmets, not to mention safety on the road.
In conclusion, paying someone to take you in their Toyota Prius is less expensive than paying for your own Tesla.
Still, I see sama's point. I own/maintain my own motorcycle and I uber/lyft when I can't do that. Best of both worlds.
"take a deep breath, count to ten"
A while ago there was an article about how Wall Street was bemoaning the difficulty of recruiting top talent from tech.
Surprise: It isn't the money. There's plenty of money there. It's the total lack of understanding on how programmers create value. And this is the result.
There's so much to expound on here, it's truly amazing.
If they lose, then there's going to be precedent for when the stakes are high. And I can't see how they can totally escape culpability, since they can't even turn over the source if they wanted to.
The anonymity Tor provides is fundamental from an Internet activist perspective but in the eyes of the law (and the world outside our tech bubble) it's aiding and abetting. There's a reason why we're not allowed to have encrypted landlines.
I don't feel good about this at all.
Oh wait there's more.
From https://www.torproject.org/docs/faq-abuse.html.en
>> Tor aims to provide protection for ordinary people who want to follow the law. Only criminals have privacy right now, and we need to fix that.
True, but distribution has always been the hard part in any kind of scalable criminal activity, and Tor is unwittingly facilitating this.
There's definitely a case here against PinkMeth.com. Revenge porn sites don't really receive protection under fair use.
So here's the sticky part.
Here's Tor's hidden services overview: https://www.torproject.org/docs/hidden-services.html.en
Since the hidden services are themselves run over Tor, it looks to me like the only thing Tor can do is refuse to serve PinkMeth.com without identifying the agents. Which might be good for privacy precedent on the one hand, but bad if Tor as a result receives all the flack for all criminal activity run over Tor -- that means Tor relays (who are identifiable) are next.
Ideas to save Tor?
There's some real Asimovesque worship of technology here. Without sounding like a Luddite (computers are good at scheduling), this is scientifically scary.
As Knuth implies, this is a fool's errand, and this is the reason why courts should not award any patents protecting an algorithm at all.
As a thought exercise, is "A website that advertises a series of random beers from a known collection of user preferred beers" mathematical?
No? Then, is a random shuffling algorithm mathematical based on a vector of inputs mathematical? No? How about the following code?
void sort(int *arr, int len) for (int i = 0; i < len; ++i) { r = rand % len; swap(arr + i, arr + r); }
Not mathematical? Then what about a function "s" described as s(x) = f(g(h(x))), where x is a vector, h multiplies the vector by the identity matrix, and g multiplies its input against the set of all possible matrices such that all elements are 1 or 0 and there can be at most 1 non-zero element for a given row and column, and f chooses a random input from its set and returns its multiplication against a vector of 1s?
These are, at their core, all algorithms, and they are all mathematical. The courts have already established that the "Internet of things" is not patentable, which is why the first example transfers to the second. This is admittedly a poor example, but for a better understanding read Knuth's "Fundamental Algorithms."
This is a fatal oversimplification hiding in economist jargon. Is making money wrong? As an economist, the answer is "It depends." From a public utility standpoint, the point of patents is to encourage invention by protecting those who would not otherwise invent. Do you honestly believe that without patfents, the software industry will decrease in productivity?
>>* stifle innovation? No. Innovation still happens, progress is being made
What? Stifling and dead-stopping are two entirely different things. We're talking about the rate of innovation, not whether it's happening or not. Once again, do you think patents are hindering innovation?
>>The patent system is working exactly as it should be.
You can't use this claim as an argument. That's the entire matter at hand.
A poetic touch from a tech genius of our generation.
2) any tool sufficiently powerful to render complex websites will make it considerably easier to create simple bland websites
3) the mythical oracle described above would not only be of interest to webdesign, but all of computer engineering. i wish you the best of luck.
Neither the old design nor the design dcurtis mentioned are current.
But the current design is more similar to the old design.
Everything else is managing your expectations. There's something about being 22 that's tough -- lots of people are advancing in their careers, and you're just starting out.
So don't drink the Kool-Aid. Forget about the valley. Don't be greedy. Once you learn to enjoy your life again and have confidence that you can be a positive contributing member of society, reconsider the mantle. Emotional stability is like muscle power -- you must build it over time with care. And you need an abnormal amount of emotional stability to handle SV startups.
Good luck.
EDIT for a missing 'to' :)
The unfettered and self-unaware bias towards Western values of statesmanship by this so-called -- do they actually call themselves this? -- political _scientist_ is cringeworthy.
This is what happens when you confuse objects in the physical world with those in the information world.
Physical rights don't expire because it entails deprivation of use. But copyright expiration doesn't eliminate your right to create, distribute, or sell -- it simply extends these capabilities to others.
But I think he's right too. He's essentially arguing about the true meaning of the metric. Of course there are engineers who can spot bugs at 1/100th the time as an arbitrary engineer. Or fixes things 10x faster (being familiar with the code base certainly helps).
But to have the literal productive capacity of 10 people? That's much different, and that's what he means. Are you capable of replacing 10 arbitrary engineers with the rockstar? No? Then that's not a 10x engineer, by his definition.
It's like catching someone on a layover -- you're very clearly in the middle of two stable (but distinct) spots. But you don't spend much time there -- which is why it's been so tough to find.
Ten years later: >> "Guys were being paid $100/hour to get CRUD working through a web framework."
People weren't being paid to write HTML. They were being paid to publish information on the Internet for the first time ever. Like, before W3 schools and NodeJS. Like, back when you got your morning news from the paperboy.
If typesetters were paid a dime back in the 1700s, anyone who could design a webpage in the 90s was certainly worth their weight in gold.
And with time, one day your job will also be super unflattering to talk about.