brucephillips

Yep. And Rockefeller started refining oil soon after the discovery of subterranean oil.

I wouldn't call lamp oil a toy. The defining feature of a toy is that people use it just for the joy of using it, rather than to solve a problem.

His example of a company that's built from a toy is Facebook. His example of companies that aren't are all enterprise.

A simpler explanation of the value of a toy is just that being "fun" matters much more for consumer products.

I don't. What's the difference between solving a problem and finding a better way of doing things?

Just to hone in on one example, do you really not see any benefit to using Airbnb over Craigslist for short term rentals? Even in the beginning? I can argue the other side, I think quite clearly, but I first want to make sure that's actually what you're claiming because it seems so demonstrably untrue.

Upside. LPs are willing to invest a small portion of their portfolio into an asset class that has lower average returns, but potential for great upside.

This seems like a strawman. No one is arguing that the 20th iteration of a major auto model is providing a new way of doing things.

It seems like you're going out of your way to avoid describing the value these products provided. Especially in your characterization of Google.

Pinterest provides entertainment, product discovery, and community.

Snapchat enabled a new type of communication by removing self consciousness.

Airbnb provides quality lodging at low prices.

Facebook provided authenticity, exclusivity, and increased information density through timeline.

Google provided far better search results.

You don't call them anything. You address their arguments and methodology. All the axe grinding in that article makes it read like a tabloid, and I don't trust tabloids.

There's a lot of information out there, but you can start here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturated_fat_and_cardiovascul...

Since the title of your first source is "Hack, Liar and All Round Disgusting Individual", I'm not inclined to trust it or investigate further.

Ah, I see the miscommunication now. To me, native apps are those that have access to the kernel, as opposed to web apps or bytecode.

> That's because you (probably) haven't used a modern text editor.

Can you provide an example? Because I've worked on > 1MM line projects in IntelliJ with no performance issues, or at least none related to text editing.

> My main goal is to build something that feels entirely like a native app.

It's not clear to me how this relates to the question. Emacs and vim are native apps.

> Are you saying that conspiracy theories are all true?

(A -/-> B) does not mean that (B -> !A)

When arguments devolve into basic logical errors, there's little hope in finding a resolution, which you're obviously not after anyway.

> You are wasting 100% of your effort on arguing semantics instead of engaging with my actual argument.

You're so intent on picking a fight that you don't realize I agreed with your actual argument above.

Happy trolling.

> Claiming that society is sexist in that way is not a conspiracy theory?

No. It's just a false claim. False claims aren't conspiracy theories.

> I would priorities truth over political correctness.

It's prioritize*, and prioritization only matters when there's a tradeoff. I'm not sacrificing truth to point out your mistake.

I've pursued this definitional distinction at a previous company, and got nothing by eye rolls. In modern software design, UI == GUI and design == visual design. That's just how people use those words.

They're speculating. That's about all you can say.

The violence in question is war, not crime.

Because your arguments are probably correct. I never claimed otherwise. I took issue with your language. You're contributing to the polarization by using unnecessary, inflammatory, and inaccurate language. That's the problem.

You made no appeal to not close borders further. You expressed concern over a vague claim of "increased concern about immigration".

If you have a precise idea you'd like to debate, express your ideas more precisely.

Do you have an example? I don't observe any bias in /r/vaporents, for instance.

Any system other than open borders will deny immigrants to some degree, by definition. So no, not twenty steps.

> It never fails to amaze me how many people (even in this forum) can rationalize both an intense desire to deny immigrants or "new" people into their culture and yet maintain free speech and the marketplace of ideas as a necessary thing to uphold for a free and just society.

Welfare. A country can have welfare or open borders, but not both, lest it goes bankrupt.

You don't understand what a conspiracy theory is. It's when a covert organization covers up a malicious act. You're just using inflated language to describe what's ultimately just a mistaken argument.

Comcast isn't a monopoly either. An incumbent need not be a monopoly to have distribution advantages.

Is this supposed to answer my question?

If not for economic impact, why do you work on Plan 9? Do you view it as a research project? A hobby?

People here might be more willing to respond to your question if you didn't refer to a highly researched Washington Post article as a conspiracy theory.

What does it mean for an operating system to run on the blockchain?