SpelingBeeChamp

I think this may just be a weird autocorrect, but on the chance it’s not, FYI the guy’s first name is (/was) Al, and his last name is Capone. Al Capone.

Datapoint of one here, but I recently visited a friend in Willamette Valley, and their area had fiber. Is that not an option for most people in your hood?

Did you know that by the end of 2017, a Tesla will be able to drive across the United States by itself, without a driver in the car?

Who do you think should have been prosecuted in relation to the 2008 financial crisis, and on what charges?

I used to work in risk management at an investment bank. When things went wrong, and the result was a gain, we incorporated it into our models as if it was a loss of the same magnitude.

>What evidence does DOJ have at the moment?

Only the DOJ knows the answer to that.

I find indictments fascinating, in part, because they pull back the curtain on what is frequently an impressive investigation and body of evidence.

The first link in that article (that the law in Delaware is clear about corporate purpose) is to the author’s own writing elsewhere.

Not that it makes him wrong, but citing yourself is not a great look, IMO.

I appreciate the link.

What obligation are you referring to? Wanting something does not make it reality.

> Social media platforms can exist to serve the needs of the people, or they can exist to be self-serving

Why do you think these are the only two possibilities?

Why can’t a social media company exist to serve the needs of only some people? Or to serve the needs of everyone, while also serving its own needs, in a balance decided by the company’s owners?

Companies don’t have a duty to maximize shareholder value.

See here, for one discussion: https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/04/16/what-are-co...

Why do you think that is “fair to assume?” To me, it sounds like wild conjecture.

I don’t know what you are referring to.

> When, as a reporter for a major paper, do you call a CEO a crook? That's a tough call.

No, it’s not. The answer is never — unless that person has been charged with and convicted of a crime.

To do otherwise would expose the reporter to enormous potential civil liability. Defamation is a thing.

Prosecutors charge people with crimes, not reporters.

I don’t get how so many smart people here don’t understand this.

It is not the job of the media to accuse people of having committed crimes, and it is dangerous for most people to do so. Defamation is a real thing. Publicly accuse someone of a crime they did not commit, and they have a legitimate civil cause of action against you.

If you can get people to go on the record with their own accusations, great, but those people, too, would be exposing themselves to potential liability.

If SBF is charged, the media will be all over it, and the coverage will be based on official records and statements. That is how news coverage of crime works.

It is precisely because SBF has not been charged that the information needed to substantiate a news story tying him to criminal activity is unavailable.

I think you misunderstand what journalists do. Journalists are not supposed to be experts in the subjects they cover. They are not telling you the story based on their personal knowledge or beliefs — those are opinion pieces.

Journalists are expected to source information from experts and from people who are in positions to know, and to attribute the information they publish to their sources.

I am not saying that every journalist or publication does a good job of seeking the truth. Only that the job of a reporter does not require being an expert at anything other than - hopefully - information gathering and reporting.

Same here with the Apple Watch. After a couple of months of thinking that the rings were ridiculous, I found myself taking intentional steps to close them. Last night, even though I should have been sleeping, I went for a brisk walk just before midnight… after I realized that I was just shy of closing a ring. I like it.

Bingo. I am a full-time YouTuber. I hate this reality.

Most people don’t understand the degree to which advertiser preferences dictate what they see on YouTube.

Creators are incentivized to only publish content that meets YouTube’s “advertiser-friendly guidelines.” When we publish content that is not suitable for all advertisers, YouTube doesn’t promote it, which is a death sentence for the video. YouTube claims that a video’s monetization status has no impact on discovery, but according to YouTube, all of the factors that influence whether a video is monetized directly impact video discovery. It’s smoke and mirrors.

An overwhelming majority of views on YouTube come from recommendations and suggested videos, and YouTube has little incentive to suggest or recommend content that is ‘unsuitable’ for advertisers. Because it doesn’t make them money.

To put some numbers on that, ~95% of my views come from YouTube’s suggestions and recommendations. I have millions of subscribers, but subscriber count is all-but meaningless. For any given video, subscriber notifications typically account for a negligible number of views, usually less than 5,000.

Remember when YouTube introduced the bell you have to ‘ring’ in order to receive notifications from the channels you subscribe to? That is one of many actions YouTube has taken to remove your ability to choose what you see. YouTube does this because people don’t decide what to watch based on whether or not it’s advertiser-friendly. They would rather decide for you.

I publish news. And there are highly-newsworthy stories that I haven’t covered because of the above. I hate it.

Wow. Does their job require a CDL?

What other easily-built products do you think should not exist?

No they can’t. If you only have a small amount of text to work with, stylometry is unreliable.

Are you talking about sabotaging the company?

I don’t know of any states that have made it near impossible to prosecute shoplifters. What are you referring to?

I am fairly sure that trafficking in stolen goods is only a crime if the person knew, or if a reasonable person should have known, that the goods were stolen.

Appropriate username.

I don't think it was your intention, but your language is unnecessarily inflammatory.

People who don't share your opinion are allowed to be here. Even if there are more of those people than you'd like.

Why does the $800M settlement not count against the business under your accounting method? It happened.

What law do you think is being broken?

Mind linking to evidence regarding the ‘second mode’ you referred to? I have not heard of anything like that, and I am a reporter who covers transportation safety.

Are they fining Tesla as well?