4 ms·
I'm afraid I'm spitting into the wind here, but.. Let's say there is a right way and a wrong way to do pseudonyms (empirical evidence: YouTube, HN). You think
by rryan 15y ago
I'm afraid I'm spitting into the wind here, but..
Let's say there is a right way and a wrong way to do pseudonyms (empirical evidence: YouTube, HN).
You think Google would haphazardly enable them as JWZ proposes without making damn sure they had the best chances of it turning out the right way rather than the wrong way?
Larry Page thinks without Google+, Google is doomed in 10 years (I believe he said that in an interview recently). I think JWZ is vastly oversimplifying the careful testing that Vic and co. are putting into this. If you believed the company's livelihood depended on it, wouldn't you?
- buff-a 15y agoLets say that in a system where you go to this huge effort to develop and then advertise a self-selection system (circles) that there is no wrong way to do pseudonyms. Larry Page thinks without Google+, Google is doomed in 10 years I'm a google fan boy. I use apps, gmail, gae. Today I deleted my google+ account. So if Page thinks that without Google+, Google is doomed, why (to paraphrase Vilos Cohaagen) is he fucking making it happen?