tomComb

35 ms·

361.
by tomComb 6y ago
The person I was responding to had already read about the issues - I was confirming their existing impression and, more important, addressing the fact that they were putting them aside for a reason i didn't agree with. The fact that yo
362.
by tomComb 6y ago
That's because it is a scammy project. I don't think that creating a popular technology should grant you a pass on the ethical issues of future endeavors.
363.
by tomComb 6y ago
Yes, but he is poor at challenging his guests and I think that is a valuable part of a good interview. I enjoyed the recent interview with a prominent American objectivist (Ayne Rand) but some of the stuff he said really need to be challen
364.
by tomComb 6y ago
The article may be bad, but the ideas are worth debating.
365.
by tomComb 6y ago
Very different governance. Not all governance is bad unless you are a hardcore anarchist.
366.
by tomComb 6y ago
Yeah, and we should try (eg. the correct incentives) to reduce driving that has no purpose or value. Just because it exists doesn't make it a good thing in the current circumstances.
367.
by tomComb 6y ago
In a different vein, Twitter is actually pretty good in that it really embraces the web (links), whereas Facebook tries to replace the web and keep you in is proprietary platform. Maybe that's why Facebook makes so much more money.
368.
by tomComb 6y ago
And why were these distro's (and their users) making the decision that they didn't want to use official Chrome, but would still use Google sync. And even if it made sense for the users, Google made Chrome open source and this has
369.
by tomComb 6y ago
If they get rich by selling books and speeches I have no problem with that, and am surprised by the number that do. People might not like that, but it isn't corruption. If, on the other hand, a president makes his presidency about doi
370.
by tomComb 6y ago
Yes, but this information is useful in evaluating alternatives and trade-offs.
371.
by tomComb 6y ago
I'm finding Eth2 attractive because of its move to Proof Of Stake which addresses the concern raised in this tweet. I believe that energy usage was one of the motivations for them making that change.
372.
by tomComb 6y ago
I'd rather be influenced by relevant ads that could possibly be useful than ones that will just annoy me. And I'd rather not make ads less effective because that would mean either more ads or fewer publishers.
373.
by tomComb 6y ago
I'm a long time Fitbit user and I think their products are great. From that perspective I'm just happy that they will survive. > so I don't see what Google could add other than lots of money and SWE hours That matters. &g
374.
by tomComb 6y ago
Should they really be penalized before being convicted? Consider that Oracle claims that the regulatory actions around the world against Google are because they ran an extensive but secret lobbying campaign against Google to make this happe
375.
by tomComb 6y ago
I'm sure the sentiment here will be very much against this acquisition, but keep in mind that Fitbit was getting killed and would likely have gone out of business without this. It is tough for a company like Fitbit to compete with App
376.
by tomComb 6y ago
Reacting just to the title, one of the reasons I admire some of those big evil tech companies is because they appear to compete really hard against each other, and mostly by creating new stuff. That compares very favorable with eg. the bank
377.
by tomComb 6y ago
The idea that Oracle (and News Corp) drove the choice of Google as the starting point for the new wave of government actions is not new, but I am puzzled that Oracle would want to brag about it. Personally I think this reinforces the percep
378.
Oracle for years lobbied states, Justice Dept to sue Google(bloomberg.com)
2 points by tomComb 6y ago|2 comments
379.
by tomComb 6y ago
Orthogonal to your comment, but Apple could say no and walk away. On the other hand, Google did so, and the cost to them is staggering and the reward negligible - they probably regret that decision intensely. It will become a business scho
380.
by tomComb 6y ago
I believe it's because they aligned themselves with Trump. Kind of ironic given the company's documented history of lying to its customers.
381.
by tomComb 6y ago
I'm being nit picky, but I keep seeing people write that they "don't like ads", which seems silly because nobody likes ads, of course.
382.
by tomComb 6y ago
But this isn't supposed to be about us not liking how the internet has evolved over the last 15 years. It's about HTTP/3.
383.
by tomComb 6y ago
Google wasn't banned. They pulled out due (primarily) to requirement that they censor search results.
384.
by tomComb 6y ago
> Lenovo’s Chromebook Duet (11 and a half hours) for which battery life is a major selling point. No it isn't. For that device, price ($300 with keyboard) is it's major selling point.
385.
by tomComb 6y ago
When Apple announced Apple news it was widely reported (there is no official figure) that they were demanding and getting a 50% cut. Gawd I hope the web can remain competitive with the proprietary platforms!
386.
by tomComb 6y ago
Great, thanks.
387.
by tomComb 6y ago
Do you have an Android version of Mindset? If not, can you point us to the "pre-recorded sessions from a well-regarded psychologist who practices hypnosis" that worked for you (or similar)?
388.
by tomComb 6y ago
This is about pushing Google too live up to its commitments, and to its reputation as one of the biggest supporters of open source. Comparing it to Oracle (or AWS etc) is a bit of a red herring as they are no friends to open source and make
389.
by tomComb 6y ago
There are some very important distinctions there. Maybe you said your free version would use targeted ads - which I'm fine with personally. It's selling data or being dishonest about how the data is used that I have a problem with
390.
by tomComb 6y ago
They spun it as leaving due to both. I've never seen an analysis that said it was a big hack, but both are points of principle. Of course, they've re-examined it. It was the biggest sacrifice for principle in corporate history a

More ›