heimatau

12 ms·

61.
by heimatau 6y ago
> which in 2008 was worth $55 billion. This is why I find it bizarre that <$1 billion in aid is reducing the financial opportunity of the country where a majority of the supply comes from. This is a devil's deal. I don't und
62.
by heimatau 6y ago
Being a money-changer is very lucrative, it's not noble nor constructive but it is lucrative.
63.
by heimatau 6y ago
This thread was good until you asked a 'why' question. It's a pretty destructive form of communication. If We want to get to the root of our inquiry, please ask a non-why question. We aren't assuming guilt with anyone, w
64.
by heimatau 6y ago
> I would wager that they knew Same. It's pretty clear that they knew and those that were blindsided, earned to get a pink slip.
65.
by heimatau 6y ago
>> I wonder what he would have to say about the media we consume today He actually had a lot to say about what we consume today [1] but I don't believe he had a firm grasp of social media and app drowning out our social interacti
66.
by heimatau 6y ago
If the profits exist there, then others might eventually find it advantageous to have this metric in the future. Maybe even accounting for strong and weak nuclear forces (not sarcasm...we are engineering at the quantum level now, soon it wi
67.
by heimatau 6y ago
Maybe a constructive message would be 'please post a summary at the top and a stronger conclusion at the bottom' since we're conditioned this way by various written structures.
68.
by heimatau 6y ago
As a current college student (33 yr old). Higher education is just a terrible rite of passage. I could give them tips on HN but who am I kidding? I won't waste my brain power on their problems.
69.
by heimatau 6y ago
So, I struggled with writing for most of my life (33 now). But around 4 years ago, I took a college 'composition' course...for the fourth time. I failed it three times previously. I had to pass the class this time because I had
70.
by heimatau 6y ago
Democratized fact-checking won't work. The costs are too high. IF you can find a way to reduce the costs of the general public to fact-check, you might be onto something. But until then, we'll see a few places that sometimes provi
71.
by heimatau 6y ago
>when we are overly focused on the "how" of optimization and lose sight of the "why," I have full agreement with you except the quoted statement above. I would actually rephrase this to say: when we are overly focused
72.
by heimatau 6y ago
We have a tension between the best of ourselves and the worst of ourselves. When someone chooses to focus on the worst of ourselves, their pessimistic perspective, generally speaking, doesn't bring out the best in ourselves. I do appre
73.
by heimatau 6y ago
> $168 billion to save a click. Also note that this is the future cash flow, in a decade (2030).
74.
by heimatau 6y ago
I'd like to encourage you to consider doing something for people too. Even if it's in the 'cloud' but maybe where something like telegram/signal has to 'pair' each device with your account and ultimately,
75.
by heimatau 6y ago
It dings/tarnishes your credit. Enjoy the phone but lenders will think twice with such a 'minimal' purchase wasn't paid for.
76.
by heimatau 6y ago
Hi Chris, do you happen to know of the optimal ways that Mother Nature removes carbon from the air? Something that we could recreate/automate.
77.
by heimatau 6y ago
> I do not think that we host the kind of data that a hacker would like to acquire Please don't minimize this. You lose trust when you minimize a valid concern. > Risk 0 does not exist If someone is willing to educate you on the
78.
by heimatau 6y ago
> we're not trying to pretend something and actually use data is a bad way When it comes to privacy, people actually want to know that YOU can't be exploited to giving information. If you can access something, what prevents som
79.
by heimatau 6y ago
Is there a way to submit to it? Also, is there a way to download the entire thing?
80.
by heimatau 6y ago
> and there won't be until we change how we count votes, and your choice of protest is effectively taking what power you do have and throwing it away. You think too highly of your 'pragmatism' (my word). Last I checked, we
81.
by heimatau 6y ago
At first I was going to be critical of your point but thinking about it for a minute. I think your right. Apple and Microsoft aren't as innovative anymore. It's sad. But I do think Microsoft is leading this front between the two.
82.
by heimatau 6y ago
This takes my phrase 'they have signal' to a whole new level. Wow. Remarkable thoughts by Jaynes. Thank you for sharing this.
83.
by heimatau 6y ago
I think it's fair due to the generosity of knowledge he provides to the entire tech community. His quality teachings has given him a lot of goodwill for a lot of people. I won't complain.
84.
by heimatau 6y ago
How do you supposed this is to happen? Some just call it a cost function.
85.
by heimatau 6y ago
> Matt Cutts (when he was at Google) had no incentive to lie to anyone Umm. Yes, he had a paycheck and bonus package as incentive. Performance reviews too. But as to Walter's attacking on Cutts, that's just someone not willing
86.
by heimatau 6y ago
I'm not sure why this is downvoted (maybe a lot of FB employees are here). But this is a valid question. 'Deals' with politicians is how engaging with DC works (quid pro quo is the norm).
87.
by heimatau 6y ago
> I'd compare Silicon Valley to Detroit with a century time lag. I had this perspective for a brief moment but as Charlie Munger said "Show me the incentives and I'll know the outcome". I think what many people are mi
88.
by heimatau 6y ago
> the problem is that sometimes it takes too long Yes but with enough people whom build tools that amplify signal. Then the people will learn. I'm hopeful we'll shorten this delay as we age.
89.
by heimatau 6y ago
> Would Google be happy if one of their employee made a statement... Would the worker be happy if their boss tells them how to speak, what to speak, and what they can't speak about? Honestly, Googlers work very hard. This isn't
90.
by heimatau 6y ago
Limiting free speech is never a good idea. Not for any reason. Google is picking a decent and fair path by allowing anything except anti-trust. Honestly, go to Google where you can be authentic and human about things.

More ›