barnabee

40 ms·

511.
by barnabee 3y ago
Interesting and fair enough, certainly should be a consideration. Obviously it's easy to think of laws that could be enacted that would make founding a startup more attractive and increase the number of startups and amount of investmen
512.
by barnabee 3y ago
> it is within their rights to terminate the rest of the contract and ban the customer It should not be. Any reasonable society would make such contracts/terms illegal and unenforcable. Citizens need to be given primacy over corpora
513.
by barnabee 3y ago
As an app user, I want you as an app developer to have no control whatsoever over how I use your app and no way whatsoever to know if any data it gets from my device is real.
514.
by barnabee 3y ago
This argument makes absolutely no sense to me. The large tech acquirers have extremely high market valuations partly because of the expectation that they continue to get away with doing exactly this. If we had more competent competition reg
515.
by barnabee 3y ago
I agree, one has to follow the law. But on the other hand, I'm extremely glad I don't live in the USA. I don't believe the SEC's definition of a security or the rules they put in place are a net good. I would not like to
516.
by barnabee 3y ago
Perhaps they start at -1 and proceed in both directions
517.
by barnabee 3y ago
It should go to showing fewer ads
518.
by barnabee 3y ago
The superstructure is mostly metal so if left alone long enough they might get that for free.
519.
by barnabee 3y ago
Yeah, totally, it really just gives a flavour of how the structure of price levels and price/time priority, tick sizes, etc. can create exploitable probabilistic advantages, and I think many folk are not aware of even this. The real en
520.
by barnabee 3y ago
HFT at the extremes doesn't just create no economic value, it actually extracts value from all other participants. Frequent batch auctions are one possible solution to this problem[0] that I see as quite promising. The problem of couse
521.
by barnabee 3y ago
Nobody is going to start the next rentec after reading this article, but for people new to the subject I think it is quite an approachable intro to some of the practicalities of market microstructure and how they affect trading strategies.
522.
by barnabee 3y ago
> We know that cognitive load is reduced by minimizing visual clutter Powerful tools unavoidably have a significant cognitive load. It’s quite possible to reduce that load by improving how some features work (for example, searchable co
523.
by barnabee 3y ago
The “Fediverse” is not an existing ecosystem in any way that replaces Twitter or builds an interesting social network, from my perspective at least. No matter how open I wanted to be, if I was setting out to build a social network, I’d plea
524.
by barnabee 3y ago
Sure nothing stops you doing those things, but also nothing makes them seem like a good idea. Why bother with Mastodon interop? Why bother building on top of a standard that doesn’t do what you want if you don’t think being part of the “Fe
525.
by barnabee 3y ago
As far as I can tell ActivityPub is (at least part of) the problem. If it’s not, then Mastodon is simply not trying to be a “Twitter replacement” or a useful global social network at all. The only worse idea than Bluesky using ActivityPub
526.
by barnabee 3y ago
I don’t know if that’s true but it seems like TikTok’s success is at least partially attributable to it not being?
527.
by barnabee 3y ago
Publishing scientific papers should not be profitable or even financially sustainable on its own. The activity we need to fund is the research itself. If we don’t allow profiteering from publishers, let’s not pretend would ever see the pap
528.
by barnabee 3y ago
Agreed. The most important property of any-to-any publishing is not to (algorithmically or otherwise) turn any-to-any into some-to-many by creating celebrities and boosting the same content to everyone. I think this is something TikTok (for
529.
by barnabee 3y ago
This tells me that you don’t actually want what Twitter is (was?) good at. Mastodon is clearly not a replacement for me. It’s a different type of community/service, one that doesn’t have much value for me. (Not to say it’s bad! I just
530.
by barnabee 3y ago
The upside is bigger than the downside, even if it has no immediate effect. There is no scheme that only gives good people access. We can and must hammer this home.
531.
by barnabee 3y ago
This. No empathy. Companies have no right not to die or be killed. Society doesn’t need to prop up your business model.
532.
by barnabee 3y ago
It wasn’t dominant but it was there. It was where I was. Not just for a sub period. It’s not so important what was dominant as that things that weren’t dominant had so much more of a place online. Not now in the adtech monoculture. Now I am
533.
by barnabee 3y ago
Chris Dixon’s narrative feels more useful to me than the one presented by the author of this. In the internet’s early history, the commercial internet experience was very different and often about companies trying to make money with diffe
534.
by barnabee 3y ago
This is a reason they suck now. But it’s still better than lending credibility to whoever Twitter thinks should have it. I don’t want tech platforms like Twitter having that power.
535.
by barnabee 3y ago
To me you are cool if you consistently add things (to Twitter, or wherever really) that I’m glad I saw, without being self aggrandising, overtly or excessively tribal, etc. and without hidden or perversely commercial incentives. I don’t wan
536.
by barnabee 3y ago
They were always uncool. At best the blue check was useful at times (“this really is the CEO of BigCo”), but people who think they have “status” on Twitter have always been the worst of it. However, now, the conflation of paid features and
537.
by barnabee 3y ago
If I understand your point correctly, your view is that any money not given to charity towards people worse off than me (or perhaps just worse off than some standard you get to define?) is inhumane? [Why] do you believe that? I believe that
538.
by barnabee 3y ago
+1 funny Buuut… bankrupt and inhumane includes inhumane, so just bankrupt is still better
539.
by barnabee 3y ago
The charitable take would be that he’s an exceptionally compartmentalised thinker who is stuck in a bunch of local maxima. Less charitably, perhaps his ideals are pretty flexible (assuming they exist at all) and within some bounds he’ll say
540.
by barnabee 3y ago
No justification for this. Better to be bankrupt than inhumane.

More ›