bobdole1234

Facebook doesn't sell data, they ads.

Those ads are targetable by categories determined from private data, but Facebook doesn't give anyone else the data, that's literally why people would purchase ads through their exchange and not through another exchange.

Google has the same model, they don't sell your data, they use your data to match you with advertisers through a fairly opaque interface that lets advertisers reach the categories of people they want to reach, without revealing the data to allowed them to put someone in that category.

Kind of like how your Mom will set you up on a blind date based on what she knows about what both parties want, but doesn't disclose all your information because she doesn't want anyone to be upset with her.

They're not third parties because these API's are protected by user login credentials as near as I can tell. That means you provide your login information, and your device can access your Facebook data, as you expect a client of Facebook to be able to do.

That means all the privacy protections from the "website" are there, you're just not looking at it through a browser, it's an interface provided by the device manufacturer.

What is there to be angry about?

If these people are so easily swayed and manipulated, what exactly is informed consent supposed to cure?

But you are materially supporting their bottom line.

Google spent billions to develop the huge data processing systems and algorithms to eventually leave Yelp behind, like a freight train leaves a horse behind.

Yelp missed the industrialization of their industry by machine.

Knowing what you're doing isn't monopolistic.

You understand that Apple uses Googles infrastructure to provide services, right?

They've got an OpenCL SDK for it now, that brings it under the same interface that a lot of folks have been using for the Phi and other many core tech Intel has been pushing for HPC.

It's not really that hard to get rolling at this point.

So, Google pulled down 9.9B in profits last quarter. That means if they've got 88k employees, they could hand out somewhere around an EXTRA $450k to every single employee every year and still be in the green.

Facebook looks roughly the same.

The leverage of a software engineer to produce money is really quite astounding when you get them in large herds.

I'm pretty sure the Bay Area is going to be just fine.

I think he said "$300k".

Releasing that information means those advertisers no longer need Facebook to do the ad targeting. They can then use other exchanges to do targeting without paying Facebook anything.

It is in Facebooks interests to guard that information carefully.

I don't know, how much do you estimate any given road contributes to the GDP of the US?

It's infrastructure that enables the rest.

Since they're using it internally to make facebook work, I'd say it's a core product and a lot of engineering efforts are being expended to make the company run better.

It just also happens to be something you can sell to others too.

That's a trick question, there are no competent managers in government service for the most part. They either burn out from managing without the ability to recruit competent staff, or they moved elsewhere to make drastically more money.

I'm sitting with a 4x multiple on my old public service job.

Since XFS works by multiple allocation groups spread across the volume, that would require you to migrate data out of the area you want to reclaim, which would require a pretty significant reshuffle of the volume contents.

It's easier to just backup and refill with a single set of reads and single set of writes than it is to suffer the huge overhead of all that random metadata updating and seeking.

Google might have just lumped you into the idiot bin, there are people who WANT their searches to look like spam. Google will happily show people what it thinks they want based on how they've interacted with the service (or sometimes, how the people on that IP address/machine have interacted with the service).

I always have to start an incognito tab to find anything that isn't pure drivel on my mothers machine. Otherwise I get search results that look remarkably like the spam she forwards me.

Try a search from an incognito tab and compare.

I'd say it's harder to quit eating badly than it is to quit cigarettes: You can live a long life without ever touching a cigarette again. But you won't get far with going cold turkey on food.

He's referring to a group that is selected based on their intelligence. In that case, it doesn't really matter what the distribution of the larger population is, because you're only talking about a group that is selected for their favorable attributes.

For someone to say that people who are already in a career, that is, already selected for their ability, are less suited because of their sex is kind of absurd.

It's a UI thing.

Most of them set a range so the standard operating speed on a highway is roughly at the top of the gauge. In this way, people can gauge their speed when driving different vehicles my glancing at the position not reading the numbers.

It's Google, there are literally thousands of open heads at any time. If the white guy passed the hiring bar, they'd hire the woman, the "colored" as you put it, AND the white guy.

Then they'd offer them recruiting bonuses if any of their friends were good recruiting leads.

If Damore was belittled, it was because he was obviously too daft to know how to keep a job in Silicon Valley.

It turns out they send you to these handy classes so you know all the rules that let you stay employed. And they send you over and over again, because (as Damore proves), some of their employees are slow learners.

You think Google is going to just let work go un-done because they don't have a diverse candidate in the role?

Funny what they posted today:

https://techcrunch.com/2018/01/11/google-claims-its-spectre-...

More likely, Google made their own mitigations, that they're keeping for their own competitive advantage.

They've had a lot more time with the problem than anyone else has, and billions of dollars to gain by solving it better than anyone else.

If they had a 15-30% loss of performance in their 3+GW of infrastructure, it would almost certainly cause a significant dip in their quarterly results, and they would want to warn the markets about that well in advance to soften the blow.

Google said they've finished patching, and it was all done before the bug became public.

That means the people who have the best information about mitigating this issue have a fix that apparently has minimal performance impacts on their cloud workloads, and I suspect their cloud customer SLO's would be taking a shitkicking if that weren't actually true.

Well, since Google knew about this bug across the boundaries of a few quarterly reports so far, and hasn't signaled radical departures in their operational expenses, and has specifically said the impact on them was smaller than many expected [1]... I'd say we know the outcome already.

[1] https://www.theverge.com/2018/1/4/16851132/meltdown-spectre-...

There's no law against processor bugs. Especially ones you fix when you're informed about them.

Intel has a never ending parade of security related bugs that get fixed and nobody cares.

This isn't meaningfully likely to affect any of the contracts that Intel has with it's major customers, and it's not like competition is going to spring forth in a meaningful way because of this bug.

It's not like he sold his stock while the company was secretly on fire and about to collapse.

Apple is actually paying for Google's capacity.

http://www.crn.com/news/cloud/300080062/cloud-makes-for-stra...

About 3GW of computing power. No really.

Apple lacks the raw computing capacity to be able to pull this off, even if they had the algorithms and data already.

Turns out that really is a concern for a lot of people.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/04/ted-cruz-dildo-b...