joebadmo

50 ms·

421.
by joebadmo 15y ago
FWIW, one of the reasons I like having a non Google service to hold some important files is in case I hit the Google black swan and get locked out of my gmail account. (I also backup my email regularly.) While integration would probably be
422.
by joebadmo 15y ago
I think what many of us really want is federation or some level of interoperability such that we can run our own services that work transparently with G+ as a peer. More like the way email works. (As a bonus, this would neatly sidestep the
423.
by joebadmo 15y ago
Your first sentence is right as far as it goes. I agree with you that G+ would be better decentralized, and based on open standards. But I think they tried that with Buzz and Wave, both catastrophic failures. And I think the strategy this t
424.
by joebadmo 15y ago
It matters a bit. With 2.2 (Froyo), they added a JIT Compiler that, in my experience (upgrading from 2.1 to 2.2), resulted in a drastic performance improvement. [Edit: This was on my phone. Sibling response from stonemetal provides interest
425.
by joebadmo 15y ago
The inherent tension between the speed and efficiency of closed platforms and the decentralized power of open standards based platforms seems insurmountable. Except that's sort of what I find so great and so fascinating about Google, becaus
426.
by joebadmo 15y ago
That's an interesting angle that I don't know enough about. For example, do the laws governing SaaS data provision to law enforcement also apply to data centers? If they do, then you're giving up some privacy from the gov't for the convenie
427.
by joebadmo 15y ago
I agree with you, and my great hope is that there is (or will be) enough of a market opportunity for someone to exploit. The market would be for a productized distributed cloud solution that's simple to set up and maintain. The target demog
428.
by joebadmo 15y ago
Great articulation of what makes so many of us uneasy about cloud computing. While I'm not sure I agree with the anti-authoritarian reason for the outrage over cheese-moving (I think people just generally don't like change), the cognitive d
429.
by joebadmo 15y ago
I would imagine it's the employees part. A lot of the speculation about Google's motivation to buy Groupon was about the sales staff, which has to be pretty extensive to cover all the businesses in all the cities Groupon operates in.
430.
by joebadmo 15y ago
First result for "bing market share": http://www.businessinsider.com/bing-tops-30-in-us-2011-4 It's referring to Bing and Yahoo traffic, since Bing is the backend for Yahoo search now.
431.
by joebadmo 15y ago
I don't know what you consider volatile, but Bing launched in 2009 and now has over 30% marketshare. Yahoo also quit search. Other challengers keep popping up too (Wolfram Alpha, Blekko, Duck Duck Go, etc.). Anyway, I found it clear that Sc
432.
by joebadmo 15y ago
Does auto-shared content not go into the timeline? If it does, then this article is absolutely partially about autosharing. If not, apologies, it's hard to keep track.
433.
by joebadmo 15y ago
Seems obvious then to say that medical spending is misdirected toward treatment from prevention. It's a tough sell, though, because Americans, to make a broad generalization, don't like to be told what to eat or how to live. What we miss is
434.
by joebadmo 15y ago
It seems clear to me that what Schmidt meant with the comment is that the industry is volatile enough that some commentators predict an upset. This is obviously to counter claims that Google is too big or too powerful, which is also obvious
435.
by joebadmo 15y ago
I don't think he's comparing FB to water, he's comparing social networking/communication/connection to water. Facebook would then be the utility company, with a de facto monopoly, but no check on its power. (Personally I think competition i
436.
by joebadmo 15y ago
But I think a central assumption about a lot of this sharing, especially on social networks is that it's ephemeral, soon forgotten, lost to the passage of time. Just like the conversations we have offline. That's part of what's creepy. The
437.
by joebadmo 15y ago
Auto-sharing[0] [1] just seems like an obviously terrible idea. For both the privacy implications and the signal-to-noise ratio. Separating the streams into high-signal deliberate sharing and low-signal 'ambient' sharing is interesting, but
438.
"Read" in Facebook - It's Not a Button, So Be Careful What You Click(readwriteweb.com)
1 points by joebadmo 15y ago|0 comments
439.
by joebadmo 15y ago
You can see who people have in their circles as a whole, but not in each circle individually. It's certainly possible that someone you're ignoring will figure that out. I would imagine that's just the price you pay in cognitive dissonance f
440.
by joebadmo 15y ago
They don't see that you put them in the ignore circle. You can't see other people's circle names. You can only see if you're in someone else's circles or not. But if you're really paranoid about it, name the circle something benign, like "P
441.
by joebadmo 15y ago
The second problem is the answer your the first problem. You only have to sort as much as you need to, and sorting is exactly what will solve the problem of not wanting to see certain people. I.e. make a circle with just the people you want
442.
by joebadmo 15y ago
http://lesswrong.com/lw/2pv/intellectual_hipsters_and_metaco... I have contrarian impulses, but I don't think they're productive. Better to acknowledge and try to understand the impulse, then think critically about the subject at hand.
443.
Google now advertising G+ on home page. (plus.google.com)
4 points by joebadmo 15y ago|0 comments
444.
by joebadmo 15y ago
There's a great response from Loic LeMeur: http://loiclemeur.com/english/2011/09/the-influencers-verdic... "Time will tell if Google+ will succeed, I am still getting incredible traction and interactions in it (thanks) so I don’t believe
445.
by joebadmo 15y ago
Thanks, Dewitt! I love what you guys are doing, and I'm glad to hear some acknowledgement of an open and federated future for G+. I'm happy to be patient, but I was a bit worried since the launch seemed distinctly different in approach from
446.
by joebadmo 15y ago
I agree. It's almost the exact reverse of what they tried to do with Tablet PCs before the iPad: wedge a fundamentally inappropriate UI into a place that demands something else. Apple also seems to be headed in the same direction with its i
447.
by joebadmo 15y ago
I agree. What do you think are the important issues? Mine are: - APIs (looks like there's significant progress) - Open-source/open standards/federation (nothing yet) (I think the second one would really sort of take care of the nymwars and
448.
by joebadmo 15y ago
I think the easiest way to minimize confusion would be to market ARM-based Windows machines as “Metro only”. Intel gets classic Windows and Metro apps, ARM gets Metro. I don't think this would be that much less confusing for lay users. I
449.
by joebadmo 15y ago
Google's openness is a pretty complex issue.[0] If you define 'open' as binary, and only true if every item in a certain list is met, then it's almost certainly true that Android is not open. But I don't think that's a particularly illumina
450.
by joebadmo 15y ago
In a discussion[0] in the early days of G+, I said: My wife has always been an intermittent Facebook user, because she was never sure how private anything was, and the periodic UI changes confused her. She's perfectly intelligent and reaso

More ›