ucaetano

36 ms·

301.
by ucaetano 8y ago
> Carpet bombing and a drone strike are not in the same "solution space", its like trying to tighten your shoelaces with your hands or with a 10 ton excevator. Oh, but they are (particularly because I'm not just including
302.
by ucaetano 8y ago
> Because there are more courses of action other than "drone strike" and "carpet bombing". Indeed, but those courses aren't always available, and war will happen in the way war happens. If not, your argument isn&
303.
by ucaetano 8y ago
> No one was ever going to carpet bomb a wedding. Not a wedding, indeed, an entire town, with possibly dozens of weddings happening at the same time. Plus hospitals, schools, etc. If you had to pick between carpet bombing and smart bombs
304.
by ucaetano 8y ago
> Google was enabling the DoD to be more efficient at killing people The world is complicated, and things are never as simple as that. Would you consider drones and smart bombs bad when the alternative is carpet bombing? It is always too
305.
Cooperation is cultural [Measuring cooperation strategies across Indian castes](arstechnica.com)
2 points by ucaetano 8y ago|0 comments
306.
by ucaetano 8y ago
> will Nah, people whinning on hackernews is pretty much irrelevant.
307.
by ucaetano 8y ago
The fact that the LA Times is not doing is enough evidence that it isn't financially viable for them.
308.
by ucaetano 8y ago
If sharing won't generate enough revenue to pay for the cost, why would you? You can't have the cake and eat it too. You can't pass regulations and then complain people don't want to do business with you.
309.
by ucaetano 8y ago
> On the Internet, nobody cares where you are located. The EU cares.
310.
by ucaetano 8y ago
> what are they doing that is likely to be in violation of some (relatively mundane, tbf) privacy regulations. Why should they even bother spending resources understanding those regulations? The decision is pretty straightforward for th
311.
by ucaetano 8y ago
> To make money? The fact that they aren't doing it is a god signal that those users aren't worth the cost. You can't pass regulation and then complain that companies don't want to do business with you. So why should
312.
by ucaetano 8y ago
> How hard can it be to build a publishing website in a privacy-respecting manner? It's been a while since GDPR was introduced. Why should they even bother?
313.
U.S. securities regulator subpoenas Tesla on Model 3 production estimates(finance.yahoo.com)
1 points by ucaetano 8y ago|0 comments
314.
by ucaetano 8y ago
> cryptocurrencies solve the previously unsolved double spending problem Double-spending in digital currencies has been solved before. Blockchain is one of the potential solutions for double spending in fully-distributed digital currenci
315.
by ucaetano 8y ago
Revenue = sales = top-line.
316.
by ucaetano 8y ago
> Theoretically speaking, this is true. I can opt to simply close the page, turn off my computer, etc. However, it may not be practical to do this all the time. Some example maybe school/government institutions that you have to use
317.
by ucaetano 8y ago
> Who says the sites using CAPTCHA are also the sites that have an ad based monetization model? > The other day I was logging into newegg to order something Newegg uses ads. > As an end user I do not want Google to track me across
318.
by ucaetano 8y ago
Probably WAI. What is the incentive for the site owner to provide a streamlined experience to an user that will consume resources but intentionally prevent monetization? Not sure I agree with it, but it is obvious to expect that.
319.
by ucaetano 8y ago
HN is now relationship advice?
320.
[Google] Keeping people safe with AI-enabled flood forecasting(blog.google)
1 points by ucaetano 8y ago|0 comments
321.
by ucaetano 8y ago
TL;DR: Uk wants to pass a new sales tax, that applies only on "established tech giants" that generate "at least £500m a year in global revenue" of 2% of sales made in the UK.
322.
by ucaetano 8y ago
Sure, but it is just a product or service being provided, which is different from an investment mechanism. It isn't just because you can create an analogy between two things that they are the same.
323.
by ucaetano 8y ago
The first reason why rules are different is because in one case (IT) you're dealing with a seller-customer relationship, and in the second (Finance) you're dealing with a investor-company relationship. Second, public equity market
324.
by ucaetano 8y ago
IT and Finance are completely different fields with very different rules. One can't simply apply one's understanding of one field to the other (which, sadly, seems to be the rule on HN).
325.
by ucaetano 8y ago
Even is the accusation isn't credible enough to hold up in court, it might make sense for a company to dismiss an employee (although not always, it depends on the accusations), particularly in at-will employment. Employment is not a co
326.
by ucaetano 8y ago
Isn't it standard for companies to never/rarely disclose why an employee is being fired (or even if it is being fired)?
327.
by ucaetano 8y ago
The slides can be found at: http://citris-uc.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Bots-v-Tots_...
328.
Hal Varian on Bots vs. Tots (Automation vs. Demographics)(youtube.com)
1 points by ucaetano 8y ago|1 comments
329.
by ucaetano 8y ago
Is there any source for this that doesn't rely on a Aptoide press release? Every other source seems to go back to this Reuters article and the Aptoide PR.
330.
by ucaetano 8y ago
Except that it was refreshed in 2017 (per the article itself). What is even the point?

More ›