amylene

Personally, I want them to run it with an iron fist. I am happy to accept the limitations that come along with the trust I have in the platform. YMMV.

There is also opportunity cost - what could the employee have worked on that would have made you more money?

Huge selection, great customer service, saved credentials, 5% back on purchases, most stuff is one day shipping for me. I also know they fix problems pretty rapidly. I get a ton of entertainment from prime video.

Those are all things difficult to get consistently from a random web store.

Another way to read it is that amazon doesn’t believe the consumer is a reliable counterfeit detector, versus “crappy product”, etc.

Minus the projection, I think all we can say is they were warning us to take their opinion with a grain of salt because they have an ostensible conflict of interest.

Wait, do you really believe that amazons retail business has had little or no significant innovation besides whiz bang tech goodness? I’m guessing you were exaggerating to make a more strong sounding statement, but if you meant it, then I strongly disagree.

Could this be used on human voices to detect tones like anger, openness, etc? If so, it might be monetizable as a sales value add.

I don’t find this exchange implausible. Black women who represented the US would likely want to project pride in their country, especially an American with Soviets.

That is to say, what she said may not have even sounded truthful to herself, but it is plausible that it would be said in that context.

My understanding is that it wasn’t the delays as much as the incentives to lie. Tech doesn’t fix what are essentially people problems.

The onus is on the organizer to explain why the meeting will be useful. If they don’t do that upfront, a good culture encourages and supports ICs who ask the organizer for an agenda.

It’s a baseline to urge people to act.

Can you point me to the dat? Sounds like a fascinating dataset.

Just curious, how have you come by this experience? Does the irs release full audit rates?

Or that people who perceive themselves as doing something unhealthy may feel better in a short window after they make a change they think will makes them happier?

How can we distinguish the effect from a general “I’m making a change” groundswell of feel goodery?

Without a reference, this comment doesn’t indicate anything.

If I asked you to abstain from any behavior for a week to see if it would improve your life... I bet most studies would show abstention helped.

The relevant question is how this intervention helped, compared to other interventions that could be seen as similar. Eg, if you didn’t watch tv for a week, how would you feel?

This is an interesting comment to me. Your conscious mind says you received no value, when reflecting. Yet your behavior indicated that you got enough value to create a compulsion.

What a funny world we live in, in our heads.

How does q corporations unwillingness to spend money connect with the idea that it’s a scam? I mean, it could be a scam.. but how does this specific piece of evidence connect?

It sounds more like a piece of unrelated information that you are leveraging to support the story you told yourself.

The snarkier he becomes, the more Facebook employees are going to follow their interpretation of the letter of the law. Ruben disagrees they are doing that.

His solution is to continue to insist that he is correct. He insists they see things his way. They decline, and basically tell him to take it up with the regulators if he doesn’t like their response.

He continues emailing Facebook.

Look, if you tell me I have to do something, and I disagree, you only have two options. Let it go, or escalate. Instead, he continues the exchange, possibly in order to get enough material to drop an outrage bomb.

This is kind of ridiculous, tbh. He has no idea why FB behaves the way they do, except his own personal story about the company. This is the kind of guy who uses Hooters for discriminating against men - maybe they’re technically in the legal area, but they come across as a complete asshat.

What is the baseline comparison here? If you asked a random 100 people on the street this question?

The wars of the past 20 years have been much less damaging than the previous wars. I actually think the last 20 years has been an improvement.

It’s possible that a human review system would be even worse. Have you seen the studies that show how insurance adjusters, working from the same inputs, with clear evaluation rules, have spreads of > 40% for the same case?

Perfect is the enemy of good. And we don’t know what work they’re doing on the engineering side.

What if it turns out they detected this code was run by other people and responsible for 50% of the unauthorized access? Just because it doesn’t entirely solve the problem, does not mean they shouldn’t pursue all partial tactics.

The best way to make a correct prediction is to continually update your estimate as new information comes in. As it comes in. That’s all the markets are doing.

When the virus starts, the markets adjust downwards because there is a chance that virus kills tens of millions, which would have severe economic impact.

As the world public health starts to reduce the error bars or bad outcome likelihood, the market adjusts.

The problem is that you’re thinking of something as having a concrete value. Instead, think like Tetlock teaches in superforecasters. Then you will have a better model of what’s going on.

I don’t have the context on the intentions of these people, but what makes you think this? Isn’t it possible they only care about protecting children and the side effects are completely dismissed, rather than it being a power grab? Just curious what evidence makes you believe it’s nefarious.

These firsthand accounts are great for identifying potentially systemic issues that could cause under reporting. However, other than pointing to directionality, it is dangerous to use them to estimate the magnitude.

The quantity has increased, if the quality is still basically the same. Also, I bet the average education/intelligence of the typical user has shifted as the internet user looked more and more like the typical population.

One explanation is that democracies have sufficient friction built in that oligarchs can’t take control. The more broadly inefficient something is, the harder it is to take full control.

To be fair, this is how it works in the US too. Just some of the values are changed.

Do you also believe these countries should accept the consequences of not influencing the next generation of successful startups?

My sense is that republicans prefer to concentrate the pork to the ownership class, while the democrats want the waste distributed to a broader voting base.