bholdr

Still ongoing...wow

I recommend looking into Privacy as Contextual Integrity. Privacy is not about control. It's about appropriateness of information flows, not about private and public spaces.

If you're interested please read Nissenbaum's book on Privacy in Context.

https://www.sup.org/books/title/?id=8862

There is also an active community you can follow: https://twitter.com/privaci_way

yes, a great advice but might not be a viable option for everyone.

Very interesting and very nicely written! I was thinking about this myself lately (https://medium.com/@yansh/who-do-you-want-to-be-in-life-ca8f...)..

I think the advice to slow down, take a break, refocus is key to figuring things out, however, not everyone can afford to do so. It's a risk, and there is always a trade off. So I wouldn't frame the article as a guide, because it's different for everyone.

The_Buccaneers_of_America https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/169961.The_Buccaneers_of...

An insightful, nevertheless, somewhat dullfull read.

Tim's vision for a Giant Global Graph (2007)

http://dig.csail.mit.edu/breadcrumbs/node/215

and something we tried to do as well: http://yansh.github.io/articles/moana/

thanks.

Hi Michael, is it a good idea to apply to YC to find quality co-founders? or in other words what is the right way for a single founder to apply? thanks.

Great! Perfect complement for http://asciiflow.com

The judge, Henry Morgan: "hacking is much more prevalent now than it was even nine years ago. Now, it seems unreasonable to think that a computer connected to the Web is immune from invasion."

"Post hoc ergo propter hoc" (Latin)

Vernor Vinge envisioned such future in his science fiction (for now) novel Rainbows End :)

"The UCSD Library conflict actually grows directly out of the other aspect of the book of interest to e-book fans: the digitization of the contents of the library. In the timeframe of the book (sometime in the 2020s, apparently), physical books’ intrinsic value has declined to the point where the books themselves are considered much less valuable than their contents.

So, to get at the contents, a company is destroying the books themselves—feeding them through a shredder then blowing the shreds through a tunnel lined with high-resolution cameras. The cameras capture images of the shreds, then batteries of computers stitch them together into reconstructions of the pages, like jigsaw puzzles. The idea is to gather and collate all the world’s knowledge, to unlock synergies that had been prevented by it all being so inaccessible before." -- Review by teleread http://www.teleread.com/chris-meadows/review-rainbows-end/

This is really great, I think. At least, I admire the motivation behind it as it was outlined by Sam.

However, it seems, YC Research started by bringing in accomplished and well-known academics in the field. I wonder whether it would've been more appropriate to focus on providing PhD Scholarship and postdoc fellowship. Though, I understand and somewhat appreciate the motivation behind bring the "top-guns" of research into this, I wonder whether bringing passionate and hungry for knowledge early career researchers could've been a better bet. I am bias on this, but overall think it would be great to diversify the group and level the field -- let the randomness of ideas play its role :) Just my 5c.

Just an app to ask Yes-or-No and also poll questions.

Your feedback would be appreciate.

The app is published as an alpha-version on Google store, so you would need to join the testers group. In any case, you can use it as a web app, however you misroute on some of the functionalities, such as sharing and photo taking.

Feels like a Quora question to me :)

This looks like the prime example of FOG computing [1]:

"A network architecture that uses one or more end-user clients or near-user edge devices to carry out a substantial amount of storage (rather than stored primarily in cloud data centers), communication (rather than routed over backbone networks), and control, configuration, measurement and management (rather than controlled primarily by network gateways such as those in the LTE core)."

[1] http://fognetworks.org

I wrote a blog post about a soviet start-up from 1989 that used SM-4, mainframe type computer.

http://yansh.github.io/articles/rhythm/

A lot of the architecture was cloned from Western or nearby countries.

In any case, it was a fascinating period that in my mind produced some of the best programmers in the world. They did amazing things with little resources they had.

Fried eggs with Jam!? That doesn't even make sense in Russian! :)

What is the selection process and how does one apply?

Here are my thoughts on the topic: http://yansh.github.io/articles/phd-distruption/

I wrote a blog post awhile back, I wonder whether YC is after a similar thing... http://yansh.github.io/articles/phd-distruption/

I think so. There are a few of theme floating around Youtube. This is what I found: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gveTy4EmNyk

>I'm much more likely to believe a wikipedia page than some random buzzfeed article.

I think that's part of the problem. You (almost blindly) trust it. Not saying Wikipedia in any way can be compared to buzzed articles, but people don't use buzzfeed articles to make a scientific point in an argument because Buzzfeed is very explicit about what it is and what is not.

I feel with Wikipedia it is not as clear, so when using it for your arguments, one should treat it with caution.

Fair enough. Valid points. Still I believe we conflating things here. I believe encyclopedias are good source for well established facts, don't think they are the main source for citation when discussing hypotheses that still undergoing testing. When it comes to Wikipedia, you basically trust it to be up to date with state of the art. Yes, research seems to show that it converges towards some notion of the truth, but it takes time and ultimately you don't know if what you are reading at the moment is a true representation of what was actually written in the original paper. Again, not saying this is bad, I would just be cautious about accepting an argument which is solely a copy&paste from a Wikipedia page that makes claims based on handful publications that I presume the person posting haven't read. To sum up, I am not against Wikipedia, I am somewhat cautions accepting wild statements like "Drinking coffee can Kill you" just because someone took the time to put it into a wikipage (with a bunch of citations).

http://www.9news.com.au/national/2015/09/15/12/13/australias...

Thank you for that clarification. My point was that basing your argument on a paragraph from the Wiki doesn't really hold water. Have you gone through those cited articles? Have you checked the data? You trust that those statements next to the citation are representative of what is actually been said in the article itself. Wikipedia is great, I am all for it. I just personally wouldn't building my argument solely based on what is said there.

Correlation doesn't mean causation.

Wiki is not a very reliable source for citations :) Nevertheless, it points that there are inherit contradictions in any research study. We should avoid make "marketing" claims.

I am sure there are lesson to be learnt.

True, there is much more to it. By "We" was referring to developers and product designers and by "thinking in graphs" I wasn't referring to a particular data structure rather that is more natural for people for grasp concepts based on association to other concepts and context.