ng12

29 ms·

271.
by ng12 6y ago
> Where I work there's lately been so much additional process, planning, keeping stakeholders and dependencies up to date, etc. This is why I like the way the linked article put it: you can lose most PMs without sacrificing efficien
272.
by ng12 6y ago
If you're hiring more people to deal with rote, managerial "process" you're already lost in a mire of inefficiency.
273.
by ng12 6y ago
> 90% – maybe 93% – of project managers, could probably disappear tomorrow to either no effect or a net gain in efficiency. I was just thinking about this. Most PMs remind me of that scene from Office Space: "Engineers are not good
274.
by ng12 6y ago
All of that is true. The question is: is that bad for society? There's increasing evidence that it is.
275.
by ng12 6y ago
The Supreme Court found that Brandenburg's 1A rights were violated. The "imminent lawless action" doctrine was protecting his ability to advocate for violence.
276.
by ng12 6y ago
> Inciting violence and overthrowing a government is already as illegal as child pornography is Doing it is illegal, advocating for it is explicitly legal. Most of this discussion is about the latter.
277.
by ng12 6y ago
Sure. It's classic you're either with us or against us.
278.
by ng12 6y ago
The elephant in the room is Facebook. There's lots of evidence they were the most directly responsible [1]. Parler wasn't bad for business but scapegoating it was good PR. 1. https://www.salon.com/2021/01&#x2F
279.
by ng12 6y ago
Yeah, I really don't understand it. I lived in a peaceful out-of-the-way neighborhood that I absolutely loved -- but every day I had to go down to the Tenderloin (I'm sorry, "Mid Market") and battle through god knows wha
280.
by ng12 6y ago
I feel similar. It's a tricky problem. What would help is what we should have done a long time ago: Apple should either allow users to install different app stores or submit to regulation as a platform.
281.
by ng12 6y ago
Well it's been proven that at #3 your site has the ability sway elections in democratic countries and help topple authoritarian regimes. So yes, the line is somewhere between #2 and #3.
282.
by ng12 6y ago
I agree with you 100%. It's why I don't like that Parler is being forced off the web.
283.
by ng12 6y ago
Right, I think this is evidence that they're not doing as well at that stated goal as they could be.
284.
by ng12 6y ago
Interestingly enough most of this applies to one of the SF tech darlings I worked for when it was growing between 200-1,000 people. Every day I'd get either a pile of Jira tickets or a PDF full of mocks to build. Several projects I wor
285.
by ng12 6y ago
I think the opposite: it's a sign that your API is too wide and users expect more special cases and edge features to solve their needs.
286.
by ng12 6y ago
Remarkably tepid response.
287.
by ng12 6y ago
My mistake. He had said he wasn't going to the inauguration previously as well, didn't realize he reiterated.
288.
by ng12 6y ago
That tweet predates the capitol protest.
289.
by ng12 6y ago
Because Twitter has stolen the narrative. They decided what Trump meant by those tweets for you.
290.
by ng12 6y ago
I think it's funny that many technologists love to wax philosophical about how disruptive and world-changing tech is except when it comes to this one issue. We have to admit that this is an unprecedented issue in the history of democra
291.
by ng12 6y ago
It's very concerning. This is a coordinated political action with unprecedented scale. You may agree with the action this time, next time you may not.
292.
by ng12 6y ago
Rather a conflating of the concept of free speech with the First Amendment.
293.
by ng12 6y ago
> Is the suggestion that all platforms have to cater to the most vocal minority? I think this is what they're doing right now. I'd imagine the average voter doesn't care whether Trump is on Twitter or Parler is on the App
294.
by ng12 6y ago
So to be clear: Facebook allowed Trump to win in 2016 but them censoring him in 2020 isn't a concerning form of censorship? I think we're past the point were we have to admit social media and the tech monopolies aren't just w
295.
by ng12 6y ago
I agree, it's probably wishful thinking. My hope would be that "we don't ban anything that's not explicitly illegal" would be a profitable stance for at least one of the competing app stores.
296.
by ng12 6y ago
Google and Apple have a duopoly. In the wake of 2016 we collectively agreed that Big Tech has the ability to influence elections, now is the time to think about how to protect our democracy. My take is simple: either treat social media cong
297.
by ng12 6y ago
My theory is they tend to move in sync for fear of the Twitter checkmarks calling them out for falling behind on the current cause d'celebre.
298.
by ng12 6y ago
Private market censorship is legal w.r.t. the first amendment. If it's good for society is a separate question.
299.
by ng12 6y ago
We spent the last four years waxing philosophical about how social media influenced the 2016 election, I think it's time to admit that these aren't _just_ private companies and there's a very real risk that this wave of censo
300.
by ng12 6y ago
What's the line between a protest and terrorism? As far as I can tell based on the 24 hour news cycle it's whether you personally agree with the protestors/terrorists.

More ›