andresp

That is fine when done at the individual level. What people are complaining about is when the platform makes that decision for you. It is fine to block a phone number from calling you, it is not fine to block people from being able to use a phone (by means of blocking access to all phone networks) without a court decision.

Now individual networks are private companies and might chose to have stricter moderation, but 1) that should place them in a different legal category, and 2) there should be enough competition to provide valid alternatives to the people being blocked from such networks, otherwise it risks abuse of dominant position, given the monopoly of access.

People with no legitimacy trying to make blanket statements like this is an anti-pattern. Frontend is massively different from the backend. It appeals to very different people. I care about scale and performance, not UI work. For me BE is much closer to infrastructure/ops/OS than the JS library of the week. This "full stack" mindset also shows the limited experience of the author. He has no idea of the depth of specialization that some of these tasks include. The fact that he can get away with basic knowledge in both of them just shows the level of the technical challenge in his work. If you are in that context, sure, I even wrote business plans when I had to (and that doesn't mean I think those roles should be merged for everyone), but there's more outside of your knowledge bubble.

Exactly. The manipulative and unproductive nature go hand in hand and were the two things that made me quit all social networks except for LinkedIn (where I see the value that I get is higher than the time that I invest there).

I think some people unconsciously know this, but they fail to act on it due to the addictive nature of the product, creating false excuses to justify their account (it doesn't matter how important you think you are, no one cares really).

Others are completely oblivious to what Facebook is doing to them. I don't think there is any hope for them. Facebook will continue to use them to squeeze every bit of free time they have into pointless egocentric activity.

Maybe with the exception of the old JS callback hell I have never seen any other language deteriorate code into spaghetti projects more quickly than Go with channel and duck typing abuses.

I think if it does a very poor at keeping "the worst ones" from "fucking it up".

Lots of different things go on in Google, that's why they use Java, Python, C++, JS and yes also a bit of Go amongst probably several others.

From generics to sets and several others, I think there are enough reasons to consider that go does not "come with batteries", especially when you compare it with almost any other modern (>90s) language.

What is most worrisome is the absolute lack of ideological diversity. Google might want to consider tackling this on their diversity policies and work groups. In the light of this video and James Damore reports I can imagine that the company is not a safe space where conservatives can freely express their points of view without feeling uncomfortable or taking the risk of being ostracized or penalized throughout their career. It would be interesting to know what led to this lack of diversity, potentially addressing some recruitment bias with conservative quotas or positive discrimination while hiring. Additionally, anonimously investigating whether a compensation gap exists between conservatives and democrats could identify whether the discrimination also happens during other stages of the employee career at Google, e.g. promotions, bonus, projects... This could be done by the company or enforced by the state itself (like what happens in the UK) and the results should ideally be publicly available.

Exactly. The EU has lost any contact with reality and is drowning in their own ideological echo chamber.

It seems that fear is making them adopt such a defensive approach that it is stopping them to see how their efforts are actually sucessively destroying any remnant of representativeness they might still have.

If this trend (which started with the financial crisis in 2008/9) continues, the EU might end up being France and Germany alone in a few decades.

How can we message you?

This was the clearest explanation in my opinion. I'm still a bit confused regarding how much information have we actually got and what mechanism is behind "passing a test" to influence the amount of information when the test result is not definitive (as in this case). We were just given a complete information about one of the options the user didn't choose, but not any direct new information specific of the door the user didn't choose and that remains closed.

Imagine that after opening the door everyone goes home and a new participant who has no knowledge of the previous experiment is called to make a decision between the two remaining doors. Obviously in this case the probably is 1:2, as there is no information regarding the previous test. Actually, if we imagine a similar situation happened before the initial problem with a previous show with 4 doors, we may as well see that the initial probability of 1:3 is also wrong if we had access to the knowledge about the previous experiment.

I still agree with the switch suggestion, but the mechanism behind it is still not entirely clear.

A more intuitive example would also be to invert the problem: leave one of the non picked doors (C) out of the random opening and use the door the contestant picked (A) as a possible case in the random opening experiment. If we start by opening A, then we already know enough to see if the user won or lost, if we open B and there is the car behind it, we already know everything. If we open B and there is a goat behind the door, consider whether you would switch your choice from A to C. I guess you probably wouldn't and it would feel easier to justify your position, as this doesn't involve the "psychological pain" of changing a previous choice by reasons that you don't entirely understand (associated with possible loss-aversion feelings).