5 ms·

Don’t let the “quora.com” make you skip this one. It’s a detailed and informative discussion of the U1 and UWB as understood today. I was pleasantly surprised.

by jws 7y ago

endorphone 7y ago
It started off sort of interesting (aside from the "people who didn't believe me are redundant bit"), but goes completely kooky by the second half, drawing absolutely absurd conclusions. Or maybe I'm just redundant.
chadlavi 7y ago
I didn't let that dissuade me, but I felt a little unsure about what I'd just read when I scrolled to the bottom and saw the person who wrote it describes themselves as an "alchemist and metaphysician".
- iamnotacrook 7y ago
  It was Quora - are you sure they didn't put "expert"?
kelp 7y ago
Back in the 2011-2012 era of Square, Brian would often opine at length about our products, our strategy, etc. He'd write as if he had some sort of inside information and was a serious authority on the subject. Anytime he'd make a new post about us, it would make the rounds on internal lists. Usually to the tune of "Oh wow, another Roemmele..." and we'd all read on in amazement at how much he'd just plain made up. As insiders, we knew his posts were pure speculation, and were rarely even close to the mark about strategy or the technical details of our products. Since then I cringe a little anytime I see one of this posts show up up. He completely lacked credibility when talking about Square. So I'm not sure why it would be different with Apple.
- zht 7y ago
  what is kelp? (just saying hello)
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- oh_sigh 7y ago
  There's a human hack where once you predict/guess/use insider info to get one thing right before hand, you will get some percentage of people who blindly follow you and can explain away any and every incorrect future prediction. I've seen it happen from QAnon all the way to "insiders" "leaking" information on what would happen each week on Survivor.
  - perl4ever 7y ago
    There's a very old con where you simply send every possible prediction to a different person, and progressively eliminate all the ones that got wrong info, until you have one left who has observed you make a series of impossible predictions.
    - dkersten 7y ago
      There's a "card trick" magicians often like to do which is to simply ask the spectator to name a card at random. If they, by pure chance, happen to name the card that the performer already knows is on top of their deck of cards (eg because they peeked at it), then they reveal the card and it looks like they performed an impossible trick. If they named any other card, then the performer simply does another trick (perhaps looping back to the named card later or perhaps simply ignoring it or making a joke). Its a good opener: if it works, it grabs everyone's attention for the remainder of the act and if it fails, nobody will even notice as they get distracted by the actual routines. Every so often, pure random chance means that they get it right and it looks incredible to the spectators who witness it.

Don’t let the “quora.com” make you skip this one. It’s a detailed and informative discussion of the U1 and UWB as understood today. I was pleasantly surprised.

by jws 7y ago

Don’t let the “quora.com” make you skip this one. It’s a detailed and informative discussion of the U1 and UWB as understood today. I was pleasantly surprised.

endorphone 7y ago

It started off sort of interesting (aside from the "people who didn't believe me are redundant bit"), but goes completely kooky by the second half, drawing absolutely absurd conclusions. Or maybe I'm just redundant.

chadlavi 7y ago

I didn't let that dissuade me, but I felt a little unsure about what I'd just read when I scrolled to the bottom and saw the person who wrote it describes themselves as an "alchemist and metaphysician".

iamnotacrook 7y ago
It was Quora - are you sure they didn't put "expert"?

kelp 7y ago

Back in the 2011-2012 era of Square, Brian would often opine at length about our products, our strategy, etc. He'd write as if he had some sort of inside information and was a serious authority on the subject. Anytime he'd make a new post about us, it would make the rounds on internal lists. Usually to the tune of "Oh wow, another Roemmele..." and we'd all read on in amazement at how much he'd just plain made up. As insiders, we knew his posts were pure speculation, and were rarely even close to the mark about strategy or the technical details of our products. Since then I cringe a little anytime I see one of this posts show up up. He completely lacked credibility when talking about Square. So I'm not sure why it would be different with Apple.

zht 7y ago
what is kelp? (just saying hello)
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
oh_sigh 7y ago
There's a human hack where once you predict/guess/use insider info to get one thing right before hand, you will get some percentage of people who blindly follow you and can explain away any and every incorrect future prediction. I've seen it happen from QAnon all the way to "insiders" "leaking" information on what would happen each week on Survivor.
- perl4ever 7y ago
  There's a very old con where you simply send every possible prediction to a different person, and progressively eliminate all the ones that got wrong info, until you have one left who has observed you make a series of impossible predictions.
  - dkersten 7y ago
    There's a "card trick" magicians often like to do which is to simply ask the spectator to name a card at random. If they, by pure chance, happen to name the card that the performer already knows is on top of their deck of cards (eg because they peeked at it), then they reveal the card and it looks like they performed an impossible trick. If they named any other card, then the performer simply does another trick (perhaps looping back to the named card later or perhaps simply ignoring it or making a joke). Its a good opener: if it works, it grabs everyone's attention for the remainder of the act and if it fails, nobody will even notice as they get distracted by the actual routines. Every so often, pure random chance means that they get it right and it looks incredible to the spectators who witness it.